Subject: [sidr] Alia Atlas' No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-08: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alia Atlas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 13:40:00 -0800

Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-08: 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-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis/

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

This looks like it obsoletes  RFC6810 or perhaps updates it.
The draft header should show this so RFC meta-data is accurate.

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 23:00:29 -0500

The authors had a loooonng discussion about this with our AD.
We will do whatever he tells us to do here. :)

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 23:03:47 -0500

> We will do whatever he tells us to do here. :)

I am not at all surprised - and that is why this is a Comment and not a
Discuss.
IMHO, a new implementor would want to be pointed to the most recent version
of the protocol.   That indicates to me that an Updates is the minimum.
Then,
well, I'd have to dig to see what we've done with protocol RFCs when we
advance
the version number.  Obviously, OSPF is not a good example here :-)

Regards,
Alia

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 10:39:26 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alia Atlas" <[email-masked]>
To: "Rob Austein" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 4:03 A

Alia

SMIv2 and SMIv1 are both INTERNET STANDARD.

SNMPv1 was not obsoleted but eventually declared HISTORIC many years
later.

YANG 1.1 has no defined relationship to YANG 1.0

I think it unusual for Version N+1 to do anything other then coexist
with Version N.  Sometimes there is another document that spells it out,
such as RFC3584 for SNMP or 6087bis for YANG but a user might never know
of them (well, quite a few do not judging by the posts).

Tom Petch

> Alia

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

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