Re: [sidr] Soliciting agenda ideas for Vancouver

[Rob Austein <[e-mail]>]

Sam and I think we probably should say something about
draft-ietf-sidr-publication, if only we knew what.

I just submitted -04, partly to get the expired draft back in front of
people's eyes, partly to address formatting issues that made the
schema and examples unnecessarily hard to read.  An rfcdiff of the
changes is available at:

  http://subvert-ietf.hactrn.net/sidr-publication/draft-ietf-sidr-publication-04-from-3.diff.html

The question for the WG, though, is where we want to go with this
draft.  It's not dead: my implementation uses an old version of it,
Tim based parts of draft-tbruijnzeels-sidr-delta-protocol on it, and
at one point the WG agreed that it was a useful tool to have in the
box, which is why it's a WG document.  But it has not gotten a lot of
traction recently.  We suspect this is because interoperable
publication service is not currently on anybody's critical path.

Tim suggested to me at one point that perhaps we should drop the
entire control sub-protocol from this draft, leaving just the
publication sub-protocol.  This seems worth discussing.  We included
the control protocol in the original draft because the only existing
implementation (mine) uses it, but one could make a reasonable case
that it's only the publication sub-protocol which brings any real
value as an open public standard.

For the record, this agenda request and the -04 version come from two
of the draft's three authors.  We have a query out to our third
co-author, but have not yet heard back, so please blame anything to do
with this draft since -03 on me and Sam.