Re: [Anima] WG status of draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Tue, 30 January 2024 18:14 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D71DEC14CF18; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 10:14:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.657
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.657 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x7-SwFh6KZq4; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 10:14:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E8B7C14F70C; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 10:14:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.51]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4TPYGB03JnznkXM; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 19:14:10 +0100 (CET)
Received: by faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 4TPYG96JdVzkmhY; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 19:14:09 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 19:14:09 +0100
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "anima-chairs@ietf.org" <anima-chairs@ietf.org>, "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis.all@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher.all@ietf.org>, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Zbk8cW3OZjisUIkS@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <LV8PR11MB8536A21D94DDA2FB95F9F5D4B5792@LV8PR11MB8536.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <LV8PR11MB8536A21D94DDA2FB95F9F5D4B5792@LV8PR11MB8536.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/L6mPrdSybz5RabdtD3vctc1D8Kk>
Subject: Re: [Anima] WG status of draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 18:14:22 -0000

Thanks, Rob

We where actually wondering about the differnt datatracker status unless Alvaro told me
how to find the reason in the history:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher/history/

Thanks for holding the document, because this is what we originally asked you to do.

BUT: We discussed this during our weekly BRSKI meetings, and
the co-authors, shepherd and chairs feel very safe, that the document will not rn the
risk to incur technical changes from other documents, such as rfc8366bis. Hence we felt
that it would be great to show progress by running this document through IETF/IESG review,
even if it then may hang a while in RFC editor queue.  So, if you still have cycles for
a small document like this to review, please go ahead!

Cheers
    Toerless

P.S.: How about a silly fun argument: Making documents wait in RFC editor queue (cluster)
does have the benefit that i at least can remember the RFC numbers afterwards much more easity ;-))


On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 10:59:02AM +0000, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
> Hi Anima chairs & authors of draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis,
> 
> I wanted to check the WG status of this document.  draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher-09 has been put on the publication requested queue but seems to have a fairly strong dependency on draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis, and hence I am wondering whether it doesn’t make more sense to wait for draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis to also be in the Pub Req queue before progressing them both together?
> 
> Regards,
> Rob
> 
> 

> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> Anima@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima