Re: [lamps] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-lamps-x509-policy-graph-01

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

On 12/8/2023 2:56 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
> Mike:
>
> I understand the issue you are raising, and I understand that there comes a point where too many OLD/NEW updates can lead to an incomprehensible document.  I do not think that we have reached that point.
>
> Recall that the IESG agreed to publish draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates only if the LAMPS WG worked on a bis document for RFC 4211.  The IESG judged that the number of updates had reached that point.  I doubt that they will do the same here, but they could.  Or, the next update could be the one that gets there.

I didn't actually notice that one at the time - now RFC 9480. But what a 
mess.   I see that there is a RFC4210bis  document in progress 
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc4210bis/) and not 
one for 4211 - is that the one you meant?  I also see that the 4210bis 
document is missing an Obsoletes RFC9480 tag, except it can't have one 
because RFC9480 updates multiple documents... I'm not seeing this as a 
shining example of what to do....  the only saving grace is that the 
referenced document here  is only cutting and pasting  a single upstream 
document.

>
> I have included the following in the Shepherd Writeup:
>
> ~~~
> 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
>     so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
>     responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
>     questionnaire is publicly available.)
>
>     No one has threatened an appeal; however, one concern was raised during
>     WG Last Call that should be highlighted.  As written, this document is not
>     stand alone.  It makes changes to the certification path validation algorithm
>     in RFC 5280.  There is a concern that future updates to RFC 5280 will conflict
>     with these updates.  The peron raising these concerns would prefer an update
>     to RFC 5280 that completely replaces Section 6.  The person that raised this
>     concern was able to convince one other LAMPS WG participant, but the LAMPS WG
>     Chairs determined that they were in the rough.
> ~~~
>
> Russ

Change peron -> person.  Add after "stand alone" -> "and is written as a 
set of editing instructions to be made against Section 6 of RFC5280"

You may find it useful to point to the discussion for 9480/4210 as 
additional context in the shepherd writeup.

Later, Mike