Subject: [sidr] Fwd: the repository document

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 13:23:58 +1000

Hi Steve,

Thank you indeed for this note, and thank you for your review of the earlier version of this WG draft. As this is WG business, my strong preference is that such interchange occurs openly on the WG mailing list, and that the WG has the opportunity to review these proposed edits to WG documents and chime in if they agree or disagree with the proposed edits.

I understand from a private mail exchange that you have no objection to my forwarding your note and this response to the SIDR WG Mailing list, and that you have no objection to my invitation to other WG participants to review your proposed amendments to the draft and offer their comments as well.

kind regards,

  Geoff

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
> Date: 19 May 2010 7:44:20 AM AEST
> To: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>, Sandra Murphy <[email-masked]>
> Subject: the repository document
> 
> Geoff,
> 
> I was the "protester" re this doc.  I have made a large number of edits to the  doc, trying to make the language more concise and clearer. I have a number of comments that will require your attention, as well as some questions.  I think the document also needs another figure, illustrating multi-use EE cert pub points. Once all these changes have been made, I think the document will
> be clear enough to have folks really see if they understand the repository
> structure proposal.
> 
> Steve
> 
>

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 09:25:38 -0400

At 1:23 PM +1000 5/19/10, Geoff Huston wrote:
>Hi Steve,
>
>Thank you indeed for this note, and thank you for your review of the 
>earlier version of this WG draft. As this is WG business, my strong 
>preference is that such interchange occurs openly on the WG mailing 
>list, and that the WG has the opportunity to review these proposed 
>edits to WG documents and chime in if they agree or disagree with 
>the proposed edits.
>
>I understand from a private mail exchange that you have no objection 
>to my forwarding your note and this response to the SIDR WG Mailing 
>list, and that you have no objection to my invitation to other WG 
>participants to review your proposed amendments to the draft and 
>offer their comments as well.
>
>
>kind regards,
>
>   Geoff

Geoff,

One additional thought about the document came to mind after I forwarded the
edited version to you:

The discussion of a local cache seems to imply that an RP will need 
to have URLs for the repository root(s), to start the retrieval 
process.  I concur, but think this should be made more explicit in 
that discussion. It seems likely to me that these URLs would be 
extracted from self-signed certs associated with one or more TAs, but 
that is not mentioned either. A brief discussion of how an RP is 
expected to acquire the starting point URLs seems appropriate.

Steve