I support the proposed change, too. Regards,
Sheng (without my chair hat) > -----Original Message----- > From: Anima [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brian E > Carpenter > Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 10:03 AM > To: Toerless Eckert <[email protected]>; Anima WG <[email protected]> > Cc: Warren Kumari <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Anima] ANIMA: WG call for consensus BRSKI "endpoint path" > modification (was: Re: Status of renaming endpoint path?) > > 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-keyin > > fra-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- > [email protected]> > > > > 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_Ym > >> QQ/ 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-keyi > >> nfra-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 _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
