Re: [sidr] draft-ietf-sidr-repos-struct to Standards Track

[Randy Bush <[e-mail]>]

> I think there is an easier way, as already suggested. Add the object
> type to the manifest in FileandHash.
> 
> 1) the rescert points to the publication point and manifest
> 2) the manifest is mandatory
> 3) the manifest is signed
> 4) the manifest is nicely(?) readable ASN.1

so move the deck chairs from coding the type in a directory maintained
by the operating system to one the spec and the programmers write and
maintain?  big win there, eh?

> Really its a much nicer and more robust solution than either throwing the
> entire structure out or using filename extensions to 'mandate' file/object
> content.

we've a long tradition of using the file name extensions, formalities
for registering them, ...  do we really need to reinvent the wheel?
where is the win?

>> i suspect no one else wants to go there, at least no one with code in
>> the game.
> Really... that is a shame. I always thought that coders wanted to make
> their code less susceptible to adverse external influence.

luckily for me, i do not have to think.  they already supported the move
from bcp to ps on this very list.

a principal goal of this little ietf thing is interoperability.  the
iesg noted we were being a little weak in ensuring interoperability in a
spec that has already been written, coded multiple times, mildly
deployed, approved by the wg, gone through ietf last call, and passed by
the iesg.

for this to be changed now is not impossible.  it just needs some really
solid reasoning and really solid documentation of how and why it should
be changed.

randy