On Aug 21, 2012, at 12:12 AM, Matthijs Mekking <matth...@nlnetlabs.nl> wrote:
> I am afraid that one document just isn't sufficient. Adding a rollover > time line requires a fair amount of pages to cover the timing details > (at least with the current approach). The current document now covers > six time lines. When we want to add time lines for Single Type Signing > Scheme, Algorithm Rollover and Policy Rollover, we can come up with > about ten more time lines. It would become a very lengthy document, > arguably even longer than 4641bis ;). In my opinion, it would be > better to categorize them and deal with them over multiple documents > (one document per category). > > We then could use one document which has the base terminology, so we > can refer to, for example, the key state definitions in future > documents. However, then we have to make sure that the key state > definitions are flexible enough to be able to describe these other > rollovers (and I am afraid that the current key state definitions are > not). I disagree that seven or eleven documents would be best for operators. Having more than one requires them to know the RFC numbers for all the documents for which they are possibly interested. Other WGs have problems with developers having to know about three RFCs for a protocol; it seems odd to think that us having a dozen documents for operators is a good idea. Long documents are not a problem if they are reasonably well organized with truly parallel sections. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
