Hi Toerless, Just using the previous thread to ask if there has been a decision regarding the document split of BRSKI-AE, we proposed during IETF 111.
Best regards Steffen > -----Original Message----- > From: Anima <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Michael Richardson > Sent: Donnerstag, 5. August 2021 15:58 > To: Robert Wilton <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Anima] BRSKI-AE document split discussion > > > Dear Area Director and WG Chairs, > > While I am in favour of splitting the document into two, the number of > documents that the IESG is willing to process is not infinite. > One advantage of the split is that products can more clearly articulate which > RFC > they support. > (RFCXXXX vs RFCZZZZ, or RFCYYYY section A, or RFCYYYY section B) > > Can you comment on this thread about splitting things up? > > I also have not heard very clearly about whether or not RFC8366bis will > be adopted and worked on. If reducing number of documents is important, > then one possibility is to merge draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher into RFC8366bis. > > Plus: fewer documents. > Negative: potentially opens up RFC8366bis to new semantics? > > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > > > _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
