Subject: straw poll

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 14:00:08 -0400

At the SF meeting Tim Polk asked us to conduct a straw poll on 
whether the new ASN.1 for PKIX standards should replace the old ASN.1 
or be considered as an equal alternative to it.

Please indicate your support for
	- new supercedes old
	- new is a peer of old

The straw poll will close on 5/22.

Thanks,

Steve

---

From: "Carl Wallace" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 14:19:25 -0400

Does this have any bearing on whether the draft proceeds as a standards
track document or as informational? 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of Stephen Kent
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 2:00 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: straw poll

Thanks,

Steve

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 15:20:40 -0400

>track document or as informational?

Yes.

Tim asked us to conduct the straw poll and provide the results to him 
as an input in his decision process, as described in the meeting 
minutes.

He wanted this to be separate from the WGLC on the document.

Steve

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 13:00:29 -0700

>Please indicate your support for

"Supercedes" is not an IETF procedures verb, I believe. "Updates" and/or "obsoletes" are terms more commonly understood in the IETF, given that they appear at the top of RFCs.

For a document such as the ASN.1 modules document, "updates" would mean "adds the new module into the previous specification", similar to a new protocol extension updating the existing protocol. "Obsoletes" would mean "the new module replaces the module in the previous specification".

Do you maybe want to start the poll again (and, if so, might you make the subject line a bit more descriptive)?

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 21:53:04 +0100

> Do you maybe want to start the poll again (and, if so, might you make the subject line a bit more descriptive)?

Yeah - gotta say that the original mail confused me too so maybe
starting over would be good. OTOH, I'll be for "updates" and against
"obsoletes" in any case - I don't think we should require the
new ASN.1.

S.

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 18:40:42 -0400

At 1:00 PM -0700 5/13/09, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>"Supercedes" is not an IETF procedures verb, I believe. "Updates" 
>and/or "obsoletes" are terms more commonly understood in the IETF, 
>given that they appear at the top of RFCs.
>
>For a document such as the ASN.1 modules document, "updates" would 
>mean "adds the new module into the previous specification", similar 
>to a new protocol extension updating the existing protocol. 
>"Obsoletes" would mean "the new module replaces the module in the 
>previous specification".
>
>Do you maybe want to start the poll again (and, if so, might you 
>make the subject line a bit more descriptive)?
>
>--Paul Hoffman, Director
>--VPN Consortium

Paul,

You are right the "supercedes" is not an IETF term. I used it 
because, frankly, "obsoletes" has always struck me as marginal 
English :-).  But, I concede that we should, stick with the terms 
that would appear in the RFCs.

So, I will try again.

Steve

---

From: Tom Gindin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 20:12:02 -0400

I'm for "updates", and against "obsoletes" or "supersedes".  I 
know "supersedes" isn't the official term here, but it means the same 
thing as "obsoletes".

                Tom Gindin

Stephen Kent <[email-masked]> 
Sent by: [email-masked]
05/13/2009 02:00 PM

To
[email-masked]
cc

Subject
straw poll

Thanks,

Steve