Re: [Trans] overview of remaining(?) DISCUSS items for draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-33

[Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, 23 Sep 2019, Rob Stradling wrote:

>> So this seems to contradict itself. You give a good reason why a base
>> url might change, then suggest to say MUST NOT. And you cannot add a
>> new entry with updated base url using the same OID I guess? So one would
>> have to replay the existing log into a new one. If that becomes a common
>> practise, how is this distinguishable from a log reply that removes an
>> entry and urges everyone to (automatically or not) update to the new
>> base url ?
>
> Hi Paul.  This was my thought process...
>
> A mechanism for a log to change its base url might be "nice to have",
> but it would add complexity.  Adding complexity should be avoided unless
> it's "really necessary".  "nice to have" is not "really necessary", and
> besides, there is already a mechanism for achieving the same goal:
> retire the current log and spin up a new log.
>
> The ecosystem needs to be agile enough to support regular log retirement
> and regular spinning up of new logs, so let's not (over)engineer an
> alternative mechanism that assumes the ecosystem lacks that agility.

While I agree with you, I am just a WG chair. So we need to hear a few
more opinions of people and then if there is a consensus, we can go ahead
and make this change.

Paul