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

[Randy Bush <[e-mail]>]

>> 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?

sorry for not understanding your point.  there is no backward compatible
way forward for 8805.  so i have hacked as you suggest

        The appendix MUST be 'hidden' as a series of "#" comments at the
        end of the geofeed file.  The following is a cryptographically
        incorrect, albeit simple example.  A correct and full example is
        in <xref target="example"/>.

randy