Personal opinion: I think SIDR is already densely littered with a LOT of specification documents, and we are now at a stage where maintaing internal consistency across these specs is a real challenge. Indeed even now there is a need for a SIDR Roadmap to explain the set of documents we have and their inter-relationship.
I would prefer to see fewer documents, not more, and I think the two update efforts in 6485 should be merged. Geoff On 8 Jul 2014, at 11:11 am, Sean Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jul 07, 2014, at 19:42, Sandra Murphy <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Jul 7, 2014, at 7:00 PM, Geoff Huston <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> the header of draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-08 says: >>> "Updates: 6485 (if approved) " >>> >>> >>> so I'm still confused about the two 6485 update drafts. >>> >>> >> >> >> Ah. So your original question was: >> >>> >>> Whats the relationship between this draft and draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis? >> >> So you want to know if bgpsec-algs is updating the original RFC6485 or >> updating rfc6485bis? > > draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs adds support for EC public keys & signature > formats to RFC 6485 for BGPsec. If 6485bis is going to be updated to include > these changes then draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs can go away but I didn’t think > that was the plan. Assuming EC algs aren’t incorporated in 6485bis then > draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs needs to update RFC 6485 or any document that > obsoletes it. I’m happy to change the updates header info to “Updates: > draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis (once approved)" though if that makes things > crystal clear. > > spt _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
