Ben,
Whoops. Sorry my response was not on target.
But, while we're on the topic of response to issues, I find use of
github for
communicating of issues to be very inconvenient.
First, the URLs in the messages are broken into two lines, so I have to
cut and paste them together to get to the right page.
Second, the lines in the files are often very long, so I have to scroll
to the right to read what has been written.
Is there a good reason that the text for proposed resolution of issues
is not being
sent via messages to this list, as is common IETF practice? Someone who
wants to
track what is happening in trans should be able to look at the mail and
see what
is being changed/proposed, etc. Using github adds a layer of indirection
that is
at best awkward, as noted above.
Steve
On 3 March 2015 at 16:58, Stephen Kent <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Ben,
The issue here is not whether, at this time, we have identified an
need for
a v2 STH. The issue is that the doc needs to describe how the
system will
transition to a new version, if it is ever needed.
That may indeed be _an_ issue, but it is not the issue this ticket
describes!
Â
Steve
#59: Clarify STH versioning
Comment ([email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>):
 I can't find anywhere that requires a v2 STH.
 However, I agree that we do not need to make this change
yet: if we
 discover a need for extensions in an STH, then we can
introduce a v2 STH
 and new APIs that deal with v2 STHs. Existing code can
continue to use v1
 STHs and the corresponding APIs.
_______________________________________________
Trans mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
_______________________________________________
Trans mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
