Subject: [Iasa20] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-rationale-02: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 03:09:09 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-rationale-02: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-rationale/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I really don't understand why this is published in a separate doc instead of
just putting it in the appendix of draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-update

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 13:37:40 +0300

Thanks for your review, Mirja!

> just putting it in the appendix of draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-update

There was a discussion about the topic in the working group. The initial assumption that I had even before the docs were submitted to the WG was that we’d not publish the rationale at all, but there were some reasonable requests for documenting the rationale. I had some concern on putting the rationale material into a BCP, particularly when it comes to re-describing what the trust is. The WG ended up finding a compromise of publishing one document as BCP and the other as Informational. We did not consider the option of an appendix, which might have worked too.

Jari