On 03-Aug-21 07:55, Michael Richardson wrote: > > 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)
That was my question too. Splitting the document but having Part 1 normatively reference Part 2 would be unfortunate. > "A" could also be RFC8366bis. Then we'd have 3 documents as an AUTH48 cluster, right? But if the result is a more logical set of documents for future readers, it's the right thing to do. Brian _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
