We understand your point of view: the PvD option in the RA is more 'layer-3' while the JSON added information for application is obviously 'higher layers' => could be in two different documents indeed. We had a similar idea but OTOH the two concepts are so intertwined that this two-documents construction would be kind of artificial (and the JSON file over TLS adds some security to the concept).
We will extend the concept of this JSON (beyond the mandatory information in the current I-D) in other documents, probably in other WG Regards -éric From: Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> Date: Wednesday 28 March 2018 at 17:51 To: Eric Vyncke <evyn...@cisco.com> Cc: int-area <int-area@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Review of draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains On Mar 28, 2018, at 10:53 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyn...@cisco.com<mailto:evyn...@cisco.com>> wrote: While the authors will review your comments and come back to the list, I want to stress that the HTTPS/JSON is really at the core of our proposal in order to add network information to the application (notably for CAPPORT WG or other). Yup, I get that. I don't personally have a big interest in the JSON bit, but I'm not saying don't do it—I'm just saying it doesn't mix well. The two are sufficiently conceptually dissimilar that trying to mix them into the same document is really muddying the water, and I think it's actually preventing you from making the document as clear as it should be. If you consider them as separate, related problems rather than a single problem I think you will find that both pieces of this solution benefit.
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
