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

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Tue, 14 January 2020 09:36 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83704120090; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 01:36:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.869
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.869 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k0cTbmvWeVH5; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 01:36:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E284B120013; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 01:36:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.52]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BB23548048; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 10:36:35 +0100 (CET)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 054CE440059; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 10:36:35 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 10:36:34 +0100
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: ibagdona@gmail.com, warren@kumari.net, ops-ads@ietf.org
Cc: anima@ietf.org, draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher@ietf.org, anima-chairs@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20200114093634.GK14549@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <19320.1558981394@localhost>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/6V0fI0TdS0WAF1hhm9aNLUPok6A>
Subject: [Anima] AD approval request for early allocation for id-ct-animaCBORVoucher
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 09:36:45 -0000

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)