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

Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@nlnetlabs.nl> Tue, 09 April 2019 14:49 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@nlnetlabs.nl>
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 7800A12084A; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 07:49:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nlnetlabs.nl
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 Ch1wHInxtlef; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 07:49:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dicht.nlnetlabs.nl (dicht.nlnetlabs.nl [185.49.140.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49781120405; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 07:49:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.87.0.224] (unknown [145.15.244.27]) by dicht.nlnetlabs.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A151C25086; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 16:49:33 +0200 (CEST)
Authentication-Results: dicht.nlnetlabs.nl; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=nlnetlabs.nl
Authentication-Results: dicht.nlnetlabs.nl; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=tim@nlnetlabs.nl
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nlnetlabs.nl; s=default; t=1554821375; bh=D/VkLUjPv/NqCNjgoL8ynz0VQhNRGCrWUXEuBJR5vn8=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=lQ4SuPRG1RF4IC6HW7jB+YBaYNQsJ9iMvpP8kBx1/op13uNEFmAAQSJfIbAzVYJST sYFJ9xGuxAGQWN1+4xEOaMoVWuNgTNYr6sYd6dZsfXAROyS9ouvhHrcWbbo78kJzLa kiIGkQuUVwNl8U+tHgnfmsvHLMXrr8QVwoYo4oDU=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.8\))
From: Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@nlnetlabs.nl>
In-Reply-To: <C11ABFDB-F63F-49C1-A9E4-48169BBD1D2A@kuehlewind.net>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 16:49:31 +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: <48B77F35-0F75-4754-A220-3B4F00EAB65E@nlnetlabs.nl>
References: <155429390854.22941.444825807988190189.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <43124744-5AFE-43BA-9386-FB8ED6C3F754@nlnetlabs.nl> <C11ABFDB-F63F-49C1-A9E4-48169BBD1D2A@kuehlewind.net>
To: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/hPK0htQKvlwPucfg65sSXaqrvcE>
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 14:49:39 -0000

Hi Mirja,

Sure, I will add a small section.

Tim

> On 9 Apr 2019, at 16:47, Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>; wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
>