HI Ekr, I actually have a related question. As this document is rather specifying a new version than “just” correcting an existing spec, it’s not really clear to me if the obsolete tag is the right choice here. I know some other protocols do this in a similar fashion, but I would rather recommend to only update the previous version RFC (in order to create a link to this new spec) or declare it historic if usage is not recommended anymore. I think that's also something we should discuss on the IESG.
Coming back to your original question about how much should be changed in a bis document. I think this is a valid question for bis doc that correct known errors. However, in case of this document that specifies a new version, I think it is the right thing to do to also align such a new version with the guidelines we follow at the time of publication. Mirja > On 13. Mar 2019, at 14:28, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:36 PM Adam Roach via Datatracker > <[email protected]> wrote: > Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-31: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks to everyone who worked on updating this protocol to reflect experience > gathered from the initial CT protocol. I have one blocking comment, and a > small > number of editorial suggestions. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > §5: > > > Clients are configured with a base URL for a log and construct URLs > > for requests by appending suffixes to this base URL. This structure > > places some degree of restriction on how log operators can deploy > > these services, as noted in [RFC7320]. However, operational > > experience with version 1 of this protocol has not indicated that > > these restrictions are a problem in practice. > > The synthesis of URLs by a protocol in this fashion is prohibited by BCP 190: > > Scheme definitions define the presence, format, and semantics of a > path component in URIs; all other specifications MUST NOT constrain, > or define the structure or the semantics for any path component. > > Unless the intention of this document is to update BCP 190 to change this > normative requirement, we can't publish it in its current form. Note that > doing > so would require a change of venue, as updates to BCP 190 would not be covered > by the current TRANS charter. > > Please see BCP 190 section 3 for alternate approaches. All three approaches > could be made to work for CT, and I would be happy to explain how to do so if > clarification is desired. > > While I agree that this is forbidden by BCP 190, this structure is inherited > from > RFC 6962, which predated 7320, so making that change seems like it's going > to be fairly disruptive. This seems like it is falling into our discussion > the other > day about what must be changed in -bis documents. > > -Ekr > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > §1.1: > > > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", > > "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this > > document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. > > Consider using the boilerplate from RFC 8174. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > §1.3: > > > This document revises and obsoletes the experimental CT 1.0 [RFC6962] > > protocol, drawing on insights gained from CT 1.0 deployments and on > > feedback from the community. > > Given that *this* document is also experimental, it seems a bit odd to call > out > RFC 6962 as experimental. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > §2.1.1: > > > We have established a registry of acceptable hash algorithms (see > > The use of first person here is awkward. Consider: "This document > establishes..." > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > §10.2: > > > | 0x01 - | Unassigned | | Specification | > > | 0xDF | | | Required and | > > | | | | Expert Review | > > The policy being cited here is confusing. It is unclear whether the intention > is > that values can be registered under both §4.5 and §4.6 of RFC 8126. I suspect > the intention here is the policy specified in RFC 8126 §4.6 only, without > reference to the policy in §4.5. If so, please use the formal name > "Specification Required." > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > §10.4: > > > | 0x0008 - | Unassigned | Specification Required and | > > | 0xDFFF | | Expert Review | > > Same comment as above. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > §10.5: > > > | 0x0000 - | Unassigned | n/a | Specification Required and | > > | 0xDFFF | | | Expert Review | > > Same comment as above. > > _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
