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

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

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