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

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

Warren, George,

Thanks for confirming.

I’ve requested IETF LC on -06.

Randy, authors, thanks for your work on this document, and responding to comments quickly.
George, thank you for your comprehensive doc shepherd review.
WG, thanks for all your reviews and contributions to this document.

Regards,
Rob


From: Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>
Sent: 20 April 2021 15:44
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Randy Bush <[e-mail]>; Ops Area WG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-04



On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 9:59 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Sent: 19 April 2021 14:41
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc: Ops Area WG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-
> [e-mail]<mailto:[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