Re: [Iasa20] Changes to draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-update wrt relationship to 4071/4371

Thanks, prefer version b,

AB

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 10:35 AM Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:

> This draft was approved last year, and is in the RFC Editor’s queue.
> There’s been a few suggestions about the draft, however, from Brian
> Carpenter and others. See for instance the thread on RFC 4071bis.
>
> One of the questions relates to whether the draft should now update RFC
> 4071 given that it is separately being replaced by the 4071bis work.
> Secondly, there were differing opinions with regards to whether
> draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-update should entirely replace RFC 4371 or just
> update it (as the current version does).
>
> I do not personally have a very strong opinion either way on these issues.
> Originally, when we wrote the update draft its goal was to just change the
> trustee selection process, nothing else, hence we did not replace RFC 4371
> even if it didn’t have much content. And even if the draft updated RFC 4071
> I think it is fine for other parts of the overall system change later,
> including replacing entire 4071, as long as in the end the new work refers
> to our draft. However, I can also see that less documents and less complex
> RFC-to-RFC relationships might be good. And I definitely agree with Brian
> that we need to get the BCP structure and BCP numbers correct.
>
> With that as a background, I have prepared two alternate versions, sending
> them for your comments here:
>
> * Version “a” (maybe “a" for Alissa as she initially suggested this path
> forward as one of the options). The is a minimal change to updates,
> references. This is the least change option.
>
>   See
> https://arkko.com/ietf/iasa20/draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-update-diff-a.html
>
> * Version “b” (for the Brian Carpenter Extended Edition). This is a more
> complete draft. This is a slightly bigger change, but results in more
> self-contained end-result. It still does not change anything about the
> trust, but copies a paragraph of text from RFC 4371 to the draft.
>
>   See
> https://arkko.com/ietf/iasa20/draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-update-diff-b.html
>
> Some of this might or might not be doable as RFC Editor instructions
> rather than re-approval of the changes in the IETF list and at the IESG.
> Putting that question aside for the moment, lets first figure out what we
> want first. What would folks prefer?
>
> Jari
>
> _______________________________________________
> iasa20 mailing list
> iasa20@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>