Fries, Steffen <[email protected]> wrote: > Based on the discussion in the ANIMA WG last week, I would like to > proceed with the discussion on the author's proposal to split the > current BRSKI-AE draft > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-anima-brski-async-enroll-03) > to separate the contained use cases as they have developed > differently. We did not finish the discussion during the meeting during > lack of time, but for the way forward I would like to ask for support > from the chairs to find the decision. I included this question also as > open issue in the ANIMA github > (https://github.com/anima-wg/anima-brski-async-enroll/issues/19)
> Declaration of conformity to "AE" is difficult, as the use cases have
> developed in different directions. Therefore the proposal to split the
> draft into two separate documents for use case 1 and use case 2. We may
> also discuss, what the target for each document would be (informational
> / standard RFC).
...
> If the WG is in favor of the split, the expectation would be that the
> resulting document would proceed as WG documents.
Are there common parts that would argue for three documents
(B--referencing-->A, and C--referencing-->A)
"A" could also be RFC8366bis.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
