Hi all, Back in late July Steffan sent: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/jjusQdqzS3G4WbczolCxF0_YmQQ/ regarding renaming "Handling of endpoint path names (from BRSKI-AE discussion today)".
Michael has a document ready to do this: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-43&url2=draft-richardson-anima-brski-renamed-00 Brian was concerned that this might add an unknown additional delay: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/3Ov2s8XxQ6pnQMp6PTd9_yDc-D0/ Luckily, if the WG does want to do this, we should be able to make it happen without adding any delay (but we are running out of time...). If the chairs kick off a consensus call, asking for objections **on this change only**, then I can do a 2 week IETF LC, also asking for objections **on this change only**. I've already (mid-August) confirmed that the IESG is OK with this process, so it would take [however long the Chairs choose to do the WG consensus call for (1 week? 2 weeks?) ] + [2 weeks IETF consensus call] +[a few days of slop] = ~5 weeks... This document is gated on (at least) draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane (which will take some time to wind its way through the RFC Ed process) so if this were to occur soon, there would be no added delay... Just FYI... W -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
