I support the proposed change. Regards Brian Carpenter
On 01-Sep-20 13:59, Toerless Eckert wrote: > Dear ANIMA WG > > This email starts a 2 week call for consensus to modify > draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra > such that new well-known URIs introduced by BRSKI will use a > /.well-known/brski > prefix instead of the pre-existing /.well-known/est prefix. > > The proposed change can be seen at the following rfcdiff URL: > > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-43&url2=draft-richardson-anima-brski-renamed-00 > > This consensus call will end on September 14, 23:59 UTC > This consensus call is ONLY for said change and not for any other aspects of > BRSKI. > > If you have any objections to this change, please explain them by replying to > this email during this period. If you agree with these changes please say so > as well. > > FYI: What would happen afterwards ? > > a) If ANIMA does not have consensus, nothing more would happen, BRSKI would > continue > stay unchanged in RFC editor queue waiting to be released by ACP draft > > b) If ANIMA WG has rough consensus on this change: > > - Warren Kumari or Robert Wilton would start a 2 week IETF consensus call on > the subject. > - When not successful, see a) > > - When successful: > > - BRSKI authors would rev' the BRSKI document with the proposed text change, > - the responsible AD (Warren) would update the YES on the document > - Mark Nottingham as the responsible expert for the impacted IANA registry > would > have to agree on the proposed registry change (which according to prior > emails > he seems to be) > - IESG would approve the change, the rev'ed version of BRSKI would go into > RFC Editor queue > > According to Warrens prior emails (see below), this whole process should take > ca. 5 weeks, > which is shorter than the current queue length of RFC-editor, and that is > still > predicating that ACP draft is approved quickly by IESG (see below) > > Hopefully i did no misrepresent any of the FYI steps. > > Thank you very much > Toerless (for the ANIMA WG chairs). > > P.S.: appended Warrens prior summary. > > P.S.2.: Warren: I didn't send this mail earlier because from your writeup > below it sounded > as if my top priority should still be to work through 1922 lines of "this > should be easy to fix" > DISCUSS/COMMENTS from IESG against ACP to shorten the time BRSKI would have > to wait in RFC > editor queue - with or without this modification. But the increasing > grouching level on > the mailing list about this subject told me that this priorization was wrong. > I apologize. > > In-Reply-To: > <cahw9_ijdghn9w0taj6kkqi-rttucvfh7uvn-jb_mbp3bbp4...@mail.gmail.com> > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 05:01:53PM -0400, Warren Kumari wrote: >> 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 > _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
