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

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Randy,

Thanks for the updates.

Just waiting for confirmation from you/Warren that you are okay with my doc status plan and then I'll send it to IETF LC.

Thanks,
Rob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Bush <[e-mail]>
> Sent: 19 April 2021 14:41
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Ops Area WG <[e-mail]>; draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-04
> 
> >> 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