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

I support the proposed change, too.

Regards,

Sheng (without my chair hat)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anima [mailto:anima-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E
> Carpenter
> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 10:03 AM
> To: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>; Anima WG <anima@ietf.org>
> Cc: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
> Subject: Re: [Anima] ANIMA: WG call for consensus BRSKI "endpoint path"
> modification (was: Re: Status of renaming endpoint path?)
> 
> I support the proposed change.
> 
> Regards
>    Brian Carpenter
> 
> On 01-Sep-20 13:59, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> > 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-keyin
> > fra-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_Ym
> >> QQ/ 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-keyi
> >> nfra-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
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> Anima@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima