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

Yes, having just looked at them both, I prefer b too.

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 15:34 Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:

> I tend to prefer Choice B.  I think that the context provided by the two
> additional paragraphs is useful.
>
> Russ
>
>
> > On Jan 10, 2019, at 9:22 AM, Livingood, Jason <
> Jason_Livingood@comcast.com> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Jari! Absent substantial WG feedback, I recommend you choose one
> or the other by the end of this weekend based on your judgement.
> >
> > Jason
> >
> > On 1/10/19, 3:35 AM, "iasa20 on behalf of Jari Arkko" <
> iasa20-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > iasa20 mailing list
> > iasa20@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>
> _______________________________________________
> iasa20 mailing list
> iasa20@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>
-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Chief Technologist, Center for Democracy & Technology [https://www.cdt.org]
1401 K ST NW STE 200, Washington DC 20005-3497
e: joe@cdt.org, p: 202.407.8825, pgp: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key
Fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10  1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871