Subject: [Sidrops] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidrops-https-tal-07: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2019 05:18:28 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidrops-https-tal-07: 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-sidrops-https-tal/

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

Usually we recommend to have a "Changes since RFC7730" section in bis
documents... however, maybe the changes are small enough in this doc that that
is not needed.

---

From: Tim Bruijnzeels <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 16:43:32 +0200

Dear Mirja,

> On 3 Apr 2019, at 14:18, Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:

We have this line in both the abstract and introduction:

This document obsoletes the previous definition of Trust Anchor Locators in 
RFC 7730 by adding support for HTTPS URIs.

I would think that this is enough, but I have no issues with an explicit section if people find it useful.

---

From: Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 16:47:33 +0200

Hi Tim,

See below.

> On 9. Apr 2019, at 16:43, Tim Bruijnzeels <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Dear Mirja,
> 
> 
> 

Yes, usually we have a whole section with bullet points in addition to mentioning it in the abstract and intro, usually as a subsection in the intro or somewhere in the appendix at the end of the doc. It’s very helpful for AD reviewing bis docs :-) but the main purpose is to provide a quick overview to implementers who want to update their existing implementation. Please consider if you think that could also be useful for this doc. As I said, usually we have it and I think I didn’t see a bis doc for a while that didn’t have it.

Mirja

---

From: Tim Bruijnzeels <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 16:49:31 +0200

Hi Mirja,

Sure, I will add a small section.

Tim

> On 9 Apr 2019, at 16:47, Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Tim,
> 
> See below.
>