Sam and I think we probably should say something about draft-ietf-sidr-publication, if only we knew what.
I just submitted -04, partly to get the expired draft back in front of people's eyes, partly to address formatting issues that made the schema and examples unnecessarily hard to read. An rfcdiff of the changes is available at: http://subvert-ietf.hactrn.net/sidr-publication/draft-ietf-sidr-publication-04-from-3.diff.html The question for the WG, though, is where we want to go with this draft. It's not dead: my implementation uses an old version of it, Tim based parts of draft-tbruijnzeels-sidr-delta-protocol on it, and at one point the WG agreed that it was a useful tool to have in the box, which is why it's a WG document. But it has not gotten a lot of traction recently. We suspect this is because interoperable publication service is not currently on anybody's critical path. Tim suggested to me at one point that perhaps we should drop the entire control sub-protocol from this draft, leaving just the publication sub-protocol. This seems worth discussing. We included the control protocol in the original draft because the only existing implementation (mine) uses it, but one could make a reasonable case that it's only the publication sub-protocol which brings any real value as an open public standard. For the record, this agenda request and the -04 version come from two of the draft's three authors. We have a query out to our third co-author, but have not yet heard back, so please blame anything to do with this draft since -03 on me and Sam. _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
