Andrew suggests that the new naming schemes should be added to the
repos-struct draft.
Tim's message implies that the naming scheme would be added to the
roa-format draft (by extension, to whatever draft creates a new repository
structure element, like the ghostbusters draft).
I'd like wg consideration as to which would be best, both now and going
forward.
--Sandy
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Andrew Chi wrote:
On 11/18/2010 4:39 AM, Tim Bruijnzeels wrote:
Call for WGLC, I support:
draft-ietf-sidr-roa-format
One very minor nit: I think it would be desirable to have a normative
naming scheme similar to the one used for manifests as defined in the
repos-struct document; using the extension .roa.
We'll also need to add a ghostbusters extension to repos-struct. I agree
with Tim, and also agree it's minor.
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
