Subject: PRQP - Split document in two ?

From: Massimiliano Pala <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:37:03 -0700

Hi all,

thinking about the document I think that there might be good reasons to
split the document in two. In particular it would be worth considering
splitting the document in:
- Specification of the Protocol
- List of service/repositories OIDs and their description
In this way the two different part of the document can be updated independently.
More specifically, I see the list of OIDs to be more subject to changes than
the PRQP core itself.

What does the WG and the WG Chairs think about it ? Worth exploring or it is
better to go with what we have now and proceed as decided in the meeting ?

Later,
Max

-- 

Best Regards,

	Massimiliano Pala

--o------------------------------------------------------------------------
Massimiliano Pala [OpenCA Project Manager]  [email-masked]
                                                  [email-masked]

Dartmouth Computer Science Dept               Home Phone: +1 (603) 369-9332
PKI/Trust Laboratory                          Work Phone: +1 (603) 646-9179
--o------------------------------------------------------------------------

People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us
who do.
							   -- Isaac Asimov

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:15:37 -0700

>better to go with what we have now and proceed as decided in the meeting ?

Please don't. It just causes implementers to look for two RFCs. It is not a big deal to update part of an RFC.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Massimiliano Pala <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:06:38 -0700

Thanks Paul, that's a good point... :D

If nobody says anything in favor of the opposite solution.. we'll go with
one document only (I do agree that from an implementer's point of view it
might be confusing having multiple docs...).

Later,
Max

Paul Hoffman wrote:
[...]

-- 

Best Regards,

	Massimiliano Pala

---

From: Stefan Santesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:18:31 -0700

I tend to agree with Paul. Unless there is a compelling reason to split the
document, then having one is better.

/Stefan

On 3/25/09 5:06 PM, "Massimiliano Pala" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>> Please don't. It just causes implementers to look for two RFCs. It is not a
>> big deal to
>> update part of an RFC.

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:36:43 -0700

+1