Re: [Sidrops] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidrops-https-tal-07: (with COMMENT)

Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Tue, 09 April 2019 14:47 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Original-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 139ED120846; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 07:47:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 lausl4Gq3gFQ; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 07:47:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8223::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C11D11203C1; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 07:47:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sessfw99-sesbfw99-93.ericsson.net ([192.176.1.93] helo=[10.148.125.253]); authenticated by wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1hDs2A-0005c6-AD; Tue, 09 Apr 2019 16:47:34 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.8\))
From: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <43124744-5AFE-43BA-9386-FB8ED6C3F754@nlnetlabs.nl>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 16:47:33 +0200
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-sidrops-https-tal@ietf.org, Chris Morrow <morrowc@ops-netman.net>, sidrops-chairs@ietf.org, sidrops@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C11ABFDB-F63F-49C1-A9E4-48169BBD1D2A@kuehlewind.net>
References: <155429390854.22941.444825807988190189.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <43124744-5AFE-43BA-9386-FB8ED6C3F754@nlnetlabs.nl>
To: Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@nlnetlabs.nl>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8)
X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;ietf@kuehlewind.net;1554821268;1dc0748a;
X-HE-SMSGID: 1hDs2A-0005c6-AD
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/aMX84oNuK5IjMf_mEMg-_YK84mA>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_No_Objection_on_dra?= =?utf-8?q?ft-ietf-sidrops-https-tal-07=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: sidrops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: A list for the SIDR Operations WG <sidrops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidrops/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidrops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2019 14:47:52 -0000

Hi Tim,

See below.

> On 9. Apr 2019, at 16:43, Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@nlnetlabs.nl>; wrote:
> 
> Dear Mirja,
> 
> 
> 
>> On 3 Apr 2019, at 14:18, Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>; wrote:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Usually we recommend to have a "Changes since RFC7730" section in bis
>> documents... however, maybe the changes are small enough in this doc that that
>> is not needed.
>> 
> 
> We have this line in both the abstract and introduction:
> 
> This document obsoletes the previous definition of Trust Anchor Locators in 
> RFC 7730 by adding support for HTTPS URIs.
> 
> I would think that this is enough, but I have no issues with an explicit section if people find it useful.

Yes, usually we have a whole section with bullet points in addition to mentioning it in the abstract and intro, usually as a subsection in the intro or somewhere in the appendix at the end of the doc. It’s very helpful for AD reviewing bis docs :-) but the main purpose is to provide a quick overview to implementers who want to update their existing implementation. Please consider if you think that could also be useful for this doc. As I said, usually we have it and I think I didn’t see a bis doc for a while that didn’t have it.

Mirja