On Mon, 23 Sep 2019, Rob Stradling wrote:
So this seems to contradict itself. You give a good reason why a base
url might change, then suggest to say MUST NOT. And you cannot add a
new entry with updated base url using the same OID I guess? So one would
have to replay the existing log into a new one. If that becomes a common
practise, how is this distinguishable from a log reply that removes an
entry and urges everyone to (automatically or not) update to the new
base url ?
Hi Paul. This was my thought process...
A mechanism for a log to change its base url might be "nice to have",
but it would add complexity. Adding complexity should be avoided unless
it's "really necessary". "nice to have" is not "really necessary", and
besides, there is already a mechanism for achieving the same goal:
retire the current log and spin up a new log.
The ecosystem needs to be agile enough to support regular log retirement
and regular spinning up of new logs, so let's not (over)engineer an
alternative mechanism that assumes the ecosystem lacks that agility.
While I agree with you, I am just a WG chair. So we need to hear a few
more opinions of people and then if there is a consensus, we can go ahead
and make this change.
Paul
_______________________________________________
Trans mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
