On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Stephen Kent wrote:
At 4:21 PM -0500 11/24/09, Sandra Murphy wrote:
...
Is there any reason why a more general/generic document could not be
produced later, with back references to the existing document as a profile?
One might try to do that, although it would be procedurally "backwards" :-).
I recognize that. Perhaps we are not so interested in procedural purity
than in procedural progress.
That presumes of course that the generalization maintains backward
compatibility to the existing document.
Profiles are more specific, so the more general manifest would be a superset
of the RPKI manifest. Not sure if that would qualify as "backwards
compatible" or not.
I was projecting in the future that work on a more general manifest might
end up not quite being a superset of the current manifest. WG are so
unpredictable. Hence my statement that the development of the general
manifest might not retain compatibility with the current document.
Hypothesizing only.
--Sandy
> steve
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
