Re: [Anima] AD approval request for early allocation for id-ct-animaCBORVoucher

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

Approved.

(This approval coupon can be redeemed for a codepoint at any IANA location,
or online. No warranty expressed or implied. Some rights reserved, some
exclusions apply, etc :-))

W

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 4:36 AM Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Dear Ignaz, dear Warren,
>
> As chairs of the ANIMA WG, we hereby request your AD approval
> for early allocation of a code point from IANA according to RFC7120.
>
> Draft:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher-05
>
> > ## The SMI Security for S/MIME CMS Content Type Registry
> >
> > This document registers an OID in the "SMI Security for S/MIME CMS
> > Content Type" registry (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1), with the value:
> >
> >       Decimal  Description                             References
> >       -------  --------------------------------------  ----------
> >       TBD1      id-ct-animaCBORVoucher                 [ThisRFC]
>
> Registry:
>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#security-smime-1
>
> The ANIMA WG chairs have verified that the required conditions for
> early allocation from RFC7120, Section 2 are met:
>
> a) Standards Action (document is standards track ANIMA WG draft)
>
> b) The WG draft adequately describes the desired semantics:
>    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher-05
>
> c) The WG participants actively working on implementations of the
>    draft have confirmed that the semantic of the code point is
>    stable to the extend that it is clear that the final
>    RFC will need it, but further validation through more interoperability
>    testing is required and only blocked on the availability of an early
> allocation
>    code point.
>
> d) The working group chairs think that it would be highly helpful to
>    receive an early allocation code point now to support further
>    interoperability testing, ensuring that the final RFC has the
>    highest level of practical vetting.
>
> The request for early allocation was brought up in the working group
> and was faced with no disagreement. The working group chairs also
> understand that there is no risk of depletion of the registry in question.
>
> Thank you very much
>     Toerless (for the chairs)
>
> --
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
pants.
   ---maf