Re: [Hipsec] Certs draft: experimental or PS

Hi Tobias,

yes, those are exactly the points that need to be considered. A straight
forward approach would be to publish this draft as experimental and then
create a bis draft, this time as a PS, which would reference 5201bis.

Another possibility is not to publish the experimental draft at all. We
could update the current draft so that it references 5201bis and publish
it together with 5201bis.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

On 18/01/2011 11:13 AM, Tobias Heer wrote:
> Hello Gonzalo,
> 
> Am 17.01.2011 um 14:53 schrieb Gonzalo Camarillo:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> in our last charter update, we decided to move the certs draft to the
>> standards track:
>>
>> o Specify in a standards track RFC how to carry certificates in the
>> base exchange. This was removed from the base HIP spec so that the
>> mechanism is specified in a stand-alone spec.
>>
>> However, I would like to double-check with the group. If we intend to
>> specify all this in 5201 bis anyway, it may make sense to publish this
>> as an Experimental RFC. If we want 5201bis to reference this spec, then
>> it needs to be PS. I would like to get your opinions on this issue?
>>
> 
> I would be interested what the implications of PS or experimetal are for the publication of the draft.
> 
> Can we publish the draft as PS with downreferences to RFC5201 now (in absence of a 5201-bis) or would we have to wait until 5201-bis is approved?
> 
> If we go experimental, can we bis the cert draft later and go for PS instead?
> 
> One reason why I would not like to have the certs in 5201-bis is because it is a separate issue/problem/solution and does not really belong to the _base_ documents but rather extends it. As extension it covers a well defined problem space and can stand on its own.
> 
> Tobias
> 
> 
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Gonzalo
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Hipsec mailing list
>> Hipsec@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
> 