Re: [Insipid] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-26: (with COMMENT)

Closing the loop on a few comments before I approve the draft:

I think one way to look at this is, we hope not to see "new" 
implementations of 7329. But there's enough legacy implementations 
deployed we still need to work with them, and they aren't going away for 
a while.

On 15 Aug 2016, at 12:44, Paul Giralt (pgiralt) wrote:

> Mirja,
>
> Thanks for the comments. The intent is for this draft to replace the 
> functionality described in RFC 7329, not just update it. For all 
> intents, it is a new specification that just happens to be designed to 
> be backwards compatible with 7329.
>
> I’m referring to the differences between obsolete and update here:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/
>
> Obsoletes xxxx refers to other RFCs that this one replaces;
> Obsoleted by xxxx refers to RFCs that have replaced this one.
> Updates xxxx refers to other RFCs that this one merely updates but
> does not replace); Updated by xxxx refers to RFCs that have updated
> (but not replaced) this one.  Generally, only immediately succeeding
> and/or preceding RFCs are indicated, not the entire history of each
> related earlier or later RFC in a related series.
>
> It seems to me that Obsoletes is appropriate because the intent is to 
> do away with the old behavior, as it has several deficiencies that are 
> addressed by the new draft. The new draft is also significantly 
> different than 7239 in a variety of ways for which I’d be happy to 
> provide more details if needed.
>
> -Paul
>
>
>
>> On Aug 15, 2016, at 12:13 PM, Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-26: No Objection
>>
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut 
>> this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>
>>
>> Please refer to 
>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>
>>
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-insipid-session-id/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> I'm wondering, given that RFC 7329 is informational and given that 
>> this
>> doc is backwards-compatitile to it, if this doc really obsoletes 
>> RFC7329,
>> or just updates it...?
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> insipid mailing list
> insipid@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid