Re: [sidr] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-publication-10: (with COMMENT)

2017-01-31 Thread Ben Campbell
On 30 Jan 2017, at 18:39, Rob Austein wrote: At Wed, 18 Jan 2017 12:59:49 -0800, Ben Campbell wrote: ... -- COMMENT: -- Most of my comments have already been

Re: [sidr] Terry Manderson's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-publication-10: (with DISCUSS)

2017-01-31 Thread Terry Manderson
Hi Rob, On 31/01/2017, 2:23 PM, "Rob Austein" wrote: At Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:29:50 -0800, Terry Manderson wrote: ... > -- > DISCUSS: > --

Re: [sidr] Terry Manderson's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-publication-10: (with DISCUSS)

2017-01-31 Thread Rob Austein
At Wed, 1 Feb 2017 02:44:36 +, Terry Manderson wrote: ... > The layering of XML, within CMS, within HTTP is certainly tedious. Agreed, but...copied from RFC 6492, trying not to reinvent wheels. > During interop and development did any situations arise where a > failure at one level caused mis

Re: [sidr] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-publication-10: (with COMMENT)

2017-01-31 Thread Rob Austein
At Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:15:03 -0600, Ben Campbell wrote: > On 30 Jan 2017, at 18:39, Rob Austein wrote: ... > > In the most straightforward implementation, wrong version would show > > up as a schema validation error. > > Does that mean that the version element is not actually used? No, the versio

Re: [sidr] Terry Manderson's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-publication-10: (with DISCUSS)

2017-01-31 Thread Terry Manderson
No, Thank you! I will clear my DISCUSS when -11 is posted. Cheers Terry On 1/02/2017, 2:23 PM, "iesg on behalf of Rob Austein" wrote: At Wed, 1 Feb 2017 02:44:36 +, Terry Manderson wrote: ... > The layering of XML, within CMS, within HTTP is certainly tedious. Agreed,