Subject: [sidr] adopting alternate trust format in draft-ietf-sidr-ta-04

From: Sandra Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 04:18:32 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Draft draft-weiler-sidr-trust-anchor-format-00.txt suggests an alternate 
trust anchor representation format from that proposed in 
draft-ietf-sidr-ta-04.  This alternate format was discussed in the sidr 
meeting in IETF78 in Maastricht.

I am asking for comment on the list as to whether there is wg consensus 
that draft-ietf-sidr-ta-04 should use the alternative format.

Please respond so that the authors can represent wg consensus in the 
draft.  The call for consensus will end Sept 8.

--Sandy

---

From: Sandra Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 04:25:30 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Forgot to add the obligatory coda:

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010, Sandra Murphy wrote:

> I am asking for comment on the list as to whether there is wg consensus that 
> draft-ietf-sidr-ta-04 should use the alternative format.
>
> Please respond so that the authors can represent wg consensus in the draft. 
> The call for consensus will end Sept 8.
>
> --Sandy

   --Sandy, speaking as wg chair

>
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
>

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 18:55:43 +0900

> that draft-ietf-sidr-ta-04 should use the alternative format.

yes, please.

randy

---

From: Robert Kisteleki <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:06:10 +0200

I support the change.

---

From: Terry Manderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 16:24:36 -0700

I support the use of this alternative format.

Cheers
Terry

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 19:27:54 -0400

At 4:18 AM -0400 8/25/10, Sandra Murphy wrote:
>Draft draft-weiler-sidr-trust-anchor-format-00.txt suggests an 
>alternate trust anchor representation format from that proposed in 
>draft-ietf-sidr-ta-04.  This alternate format was discussed in the 
>sidr meeting in IETF78 in Maastricht.
>
>I am asking for comment on the list as to whether there is wg 
>consensus that draft-ietf-sidr-ta-04 should use the alternative 
>format.
>

I am in favor of the WG switching to the simpler format, but only if 
the issues I raised on the list and at the meeting are addressed. 
Also, I would not characterize the question as you did above. Isn't 
the proposal for a (hopefully revised) version of Sam's draft to 
replace sidr-ta-04?

Steve

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 10:02:12 +1000

On 26/08/2010, at 9:27 AM, Stephen Kent wrote:

>> Draft draft-weiler-sidr-trust-anchor-format-00.txt suggests an alternate trust anchor representation format from that proposed in draft-ietf-sidr-ta-04.  This alternate format was discussed in the sidr meeting in IETF78 in Maastricht.
>> 
>> I am asking for comment on the list as to whether there is wg consensus that draft-ietf-sidr-ta-04 should use the alternative format.
>> 
>> Please respond so that the authors can represent wg consensus in the draft.  The call for consensus will end Sept 8.
>> 
>> --Sandy
> 
> I am in favor of the WG switching to the simpler format, but only if the issues I raised on the list and at the meeting are addressed. Also, I would not characterize the question as you did above. Isn't the proposal for a (hopefully revised) version of Sam's draft to replace sidr-ta-04?

I am happy to work with Sam to produce a single co-edited draft, if Sam is equally willing to do so.

Sam?

  Geoff

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 10:04:46 +0900

> the proposal for a (hopefully revised) version of Sam's draft to 

indeed.  sam's draft should replace.

randy

---

From: [email-masked] (Sandy Murphy)
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 03:02:58 -0400 (EDT)

>the issues I raised on the list and at the meeting are addressed.

Good.

Sam's message to the list said:

>I encourage the WG to adopt this format in place of the one in the current WG doc. 

I read that as asking for adoption of the format in the current draft, not of
adoption of an alternate draft.

Not that it matters, actually.  The same (revised) format would result in
either case.

--Sandy, speaking as wg chair.

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:15:28 -0400

> that draft-ietf-sidr-ta-04 should use the alternative format.

Yes, please.

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 11:26:41 -0400

> consensus that draft-ietf-sidr-ta-04 should use the alternative  

Yup.

-- 
Never criticize a man till you've walked a mile in his shoes.  Then if  
he didn't like what you've said, he's a mile away and barefoot.