Re: [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-04

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

Rob:
>> 
>> Unless <xref target="RFC8805"/> is modified to formally define
> [RW] 
> 
> My comment was less about what gets written in the documents, and more about how this update would actually be done in practice.  E.g., updating 8805 to indicate a new section would presumably break any existing clients expecting to fetch a regular CSV file via the "geofeed: or "remaks: geofeed" attributes?
> 
> I.e., it seems that either 8805 would have to be updated in backwards compatible way, and it looks like adding such an appendix wouldn't be backwards compatible (c.f., RFC 8805 section 7), or all clients would have to be updated before the publishing format is changed, or it would need new geofeed attribute names to publish the different versions of the geofeed data at the same time.
> 
> How wedded are you to that text?  Perhaps it would be simpler to just delete the "Until [RFC8805] is updated to formally define such an appendix" text and just say that the signature is always predicated by '#' comments?

The whole reason that the signature is put in comments is so that they can be ignored by clients that only understand RFC 8805.

> One point of clarification is that 8805 was published as Informational on the RSE, but I'm not sure that really matters.

I think the there just needs to be a downref called out in the IETF Last Call.

Russ