IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sidr] posted: draft-huston-sidr-validity-00.txt

Samuel Weiler <weiler@tislabs.com> Wed, 14 October 2015 15:02 UTC

Return-Path: <weiler@tislabs.com>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F42C1A923B for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Oct 2015 08:02:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LPCNHM4vtuKt for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Oct 2015 08:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from walnut.tislabs.com (walnut.tislabs.com [192.94.214.200]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 818A11A916C for <sidr@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Oct 2015 08:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nova.tislabs.com (unknown [10.66.1.77]) by walnut.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8B8728B0046 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:02:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from nova.tislabs.com (nova.tislabs.com [10.66.1.77]) by nova.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B352E1F8035 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:02:23 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:02:23 -0400
From: Samuel Weiler <weiler@tislabs.com>
To: sidr@ietf.org
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.03.1510131517100.32318@tislabs.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.03 (LRH 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format="flowed"; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/YM_G7WTmopzWbMQUZI38JNg0kFQ>
Subject: Re: [sidr] posted: draft-huston-sidr-validity-00.txt
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <sidr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidr/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 15:02:25 -0000

> We were about to ask the WG chairs for a WG Last Call on this document, 
> but then noticed that this is an informational document and its 
> attempting to update a standards track RFC

Changing the "intended status" of a doc seems easier than spinning a new 
one.  In any case, I would prefer to see the change and the context for it 
kept together.

Also, both/either document would benefit from a more meaningful abstract 
and intro.  At the very least, briefly explain _what_ is being changed. 
(The abstract and intro of the current WG doc hint at "why", but still 
don't say "what".  The new doc does neither.)

-- Sam

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email