At 1:44 PM -0400 7/11/11, Sandra Murphy wrote:
...
Agreed. The CP cites the alg spec (draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-algs).
However, this doc say that the alg specs doc will be updated to
reflect the new alg suite, and to include the timeline for the alg
transition. Once that happens, a failure to comply with the alg
transition procedure described here will imply noncompliance with
the CP.
S---T---R---E---T---C---H???
If the non-compliance with this draft was to fail to update the algs
document, then the failure to comply with the procedure would not
imply non-compliance with the CP.
--Sandy, speaking as wg chair
Sandy,
But stretching is the usual pre-exercise warm up, and the transition to a
new alg suite will be an exercise, so ... :-).
Stated less circuitously, the CP currently mandates support for the algs
in the Alg Spec. These algs used to be in the CP, but it was decided to
move them into a separate doc, to avoid the need ti change the CP when the
algs change. An early version of the alg transition doc called for updating
the CP to reflect alg transition. But, we moved the algs spec to a separate
doc, so the alg transition now cals for the alg spec to be replaced with
a new doc that calls out the new algs and provides the transition timeline.
We have gone down the path of document modularization and
indirection, this is where we wound up!
Steve
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
