On 16/07/2011, at 5:53 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote: > SIDR WG, > > During IESG review the there was a preference for > draft-ietf-sidr-repos-struct to be Standards Track > rather than BCP. > > Making this change does not require a new IETF LC. > > I want to get sense of whether the WG would be OK > with this change of track. > > If anyone has a reason not to change to Standards > Track, please let me know by 29th July.
The draft is ambivalent - it has a bunch of standards-type normative terms of MUSTs and SHOULDs, yet the introduction states that these are just recommendations. As far as I understand it, as long as a CA conformed to the res-cert profile draft and related standards track specs, the CA can do pretty much whatever it wants in terms of the structure of their repository publication point and a cautious Relying Party would still be able to synchronise with it. So as far as I can see the draft is logically a BCP in so far as it is saying "this is good practice for a CA in terms of management of its publication point" and, quite properly, the drtaft falls short of saying "this is a necessary set of constraints that are necessary for interoperability." I suspect that either way the draft should be edited. If it were to be standards track the introductory text that refers to recommendations should be altered to say that this is a mandatory part of the specification of a CA's publication (but in such a case I do not believe that there is clear technical justification for such a restriction), and if it were left as a BCP then it would be more consistent if the use of normative terms were to be excised from the draft. Personally I feel that Standards Track is using a sledge hammer to crack a nut - I think its overkill and has no clear technical justification in my view. Geoff _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
