Subject: [sidr] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-publication-10: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 12:59:49 -0800

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidr-publication-10: 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-sidr-publication/

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

Most of my comments have already been made by others. But with the
questions about upgrade paths, I see there is in fact a "version" element
defined. How is that expected to be used? I don't see a version related
error code.

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:39:21 -0500

At Wed, 18 Jan 2017 12:59:49 -0800, Ben Campbell wrote:
...

In the most straightforward implementation, wrong version would show
up as a schema validation error.

We could certainly add an error code for this if you prefer, just
didn't think of it.

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:15:03 -0600

> up as a schema validation error.

Does that mean that the version element is not actually used?

> We could certainly add an error code for this if you prefer, just

I think that's up to you (and the WG). The main thing I would like to 
see is some text talking about how versioning is expected to work, or at 
least how _this_ version should behave in version mismatch conditions. 
Whether or not it needs an error code probably depends on that text.

Thanks!

Ben.

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 23:28:14 -0500

...
> Does that mean that the version element is not actually used?

No, the version attribute is required to be present.  It's just that,
at the moment, there's only one value it's allowed to have.

> Whether or not it needs an error code probably depends on that text.

OK, will add something about that to -11.