Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-08: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a general discuss on the principle of using extension mechanisms (like versioning) and how and when to use it. This document increases the version number to add one new PDU type as well as to clarify some questions on timing parameters. However, versioning is just one extensibility mechanism out-of a whole set of option. In this case the protocol also has an (8 bit) type field to define new PDU types. Only 8 types are used so far (in version 0 of the protocol) out of 2^8 which leaves another option for extending the protocol. The usually specification here is that the receiver will ignor unknown types which is exactl what you want. There in this case I don't see that a new version necessary. Further there is an issue on how the versioning is done. This document looks like a bis document and used to obsolete the old spec till the last version (-07) but now neither updates nor obsolete it. If you actually decide to have a new version, that might be right (also updating might be an option which I would actually recommend in this case because I believe the expectation is that new implementation should always implement this version) but I don't really see in this case that doublicating all the text is the best option. I would actually not recommend to increase the version because I really don't see a need for this, given the (much easier) extensibily mechanism you have with the type. If you'd only would like add the new type, then actually a short draft that defines the type and updates rfc6810 would be sufficient. Regarding the other calrification, I think this could also be done in a short (potentially the same) updating draft. If you still think it better to copy all the text and have one clean draft than obsoleting is the right choice. _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr