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

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 9:59 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> 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.
>

Yup, completely...

(and apologies for the delay, I've been somewhat under the weather for the
past 3 weeks...)
W



>
> 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
>


-- 
The computing scientist’s main challenge is not to get confused by the
complexities of his own making.
  -- E. W. Dijkstra