[Anima] ANIMA: WG call for consensus BRSKI "endpoint path" modification (was: Re: Status of renaming endpoint path?)

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Tue, 01 September 2020 01:59 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 0E5973A1A75 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 18:59:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.65
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VAxE1PgUpNzZ for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 18:59:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC4763A1A73 for <anima@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 18:59:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.52]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8F3854860E; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 03:59:06 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id ABA9C440059; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 03:59:06 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 03:59:06 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Anima WG <anima@ietf.org>
Cc: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Message-ID: <20200901015906.GA20765@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/rm5WhGkOVD_S4eKD26lRex2kR-A>
Subject: [Anima] ANIMA: WG call for consensus BRSKI "endpoint path" modification (was: Re: Status of renaming endpoint path?)
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 01 Sep 2020 01:59:15 -0000

Dear ANIMA WG

This email starts a 2 week call for consensus to modify draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra
such that new well-known URIs introduced by BRSKI will use a /.well-known/brski
prefix instead of the pre-existing /.well-known/est prefix.

The proposed change can be seen at the following rfcdiff URL:

https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-43&url2=draft-richardson-anima-brski-renamed-00

This consensus call will end on September 14, 23:59 UTC
This consensus call is ONLY for said change and not for any other aspects of BRSKI.

If you have any objections to this change, please explain them by replying to
this email during this period. If you agree with these changes please say so as well.

FYI: What would happen afterwards ?

a) If ANIMA does not have consensus, nothing more would happen, BRSKI would continue
   stay unchanged in RFC editor queue waiting to be released by ACP draft 

b) If ANIMA WG has rough consensus on this change:

- Warren Kumari or Robert Wilton would start a 2 week IETF consensus call on the subject.
- When not successful, see a)

-  When successful:

- BRSKI authors would rev' the BRSKI document with the proposed text change,
- the responsible AD (Warren) would update the YES on the document
- Mark Nottingham as the responsible expert for the impacted IANA registry would
  have to agree on the proposed registry change (which according to prior emails
  he seems to be)
- IESG would approve the change, the rev'ed version of BRSKI would go into RFC Editor queue

According to Warrens prior emails (see below), this whole process should take ca. 5 weeks,
which is shorter than the current queue length of RFC-editor, and that is still
predicating that ACP draft is approved quickly by IESG (see below)

Hopefully i did no misrepresent any of the FYI steps.

Thank you very much
    Toerless (for the ANIMA WG chairs).

P.S.: appended Warrens prior summary.

P.S.2.: Warren: I didn't send this mail earlier because from your writeup below it sounded
as if my top priority should still be to work through 1922 lines of "this should be easy to fix"
DISCUSS/COMMENTS from IESG against ACP to shorten the time BRSKI would have to wait in RFC
editor queue - with or without this modification. But the increasing grouching level on
the mailing list about this subject told me that this priorization was wrong. I apologize.

In-Reply-To: <CAHw9_iJDGhn9W0TaJ6kKQi-RTtuCvFh7UVN-jb_MbP3BbP4z2g@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 05:01:53PM -0400, Warren Kumari wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Back in late July Steffan sent:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/jjusQdqzS3G4WbczolCxF0_YmQQ/
> regarding renaming "Handling of endpoint path names (from BRSKI-AE
> discussion today)".
> 
> Michael has a document ready to do this:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-43&url2=draft-richardson-anima-brski-renamed-00
> 
> Brian was concerned that this might add an unknown additional delay:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/3Ov2s8XxQ6pnQMp6PTd9_yDc-D0/
> 
> Luckily, if the WG does want to do this, we should be able to make it
> happen without adding any delay (but we are running out of time...).
> 
> If the chairs kick off a consensus call, asking for objections **on
> this change only**, then I can do a 2 week IETF LC, also asking for
> objections **on this change only**.
> 
> I've already (mid-August) confirmed that the IESG is OK with this
> process, so it would take [however long the Chairs choose to do the WG
> consensus call for (1 week? 2 weeks?) ]  + [2 weeks IETF consensus
> call] +[a few days of slop] = ~5 weeks...
> 
> This document is gated on (at least)
> draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane (which will take some time to
> wind its way through the RFC Ed process) so if this were to occur
> soon, there would be no added delay...
> 
> Just FYI...
> W
> 
> -- 
> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
> idea in the first place.
> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
> of pants.
>    ---maf
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> Anima@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima

-- 
---
tte@cs.fau.de