Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: <draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6220bis-03> (Defining the Role and Function of IETF Protocol Parameter Registry Operators)
Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Sat, 24 August 2019 20:01 UTC
Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3BD912006E; Sat, 24 Aug 2019 13:01:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 8VNGbL_SdLl2; Sat, 24 Aug 2019 13:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E421A120046; Sat, 24 Aug 2019 13:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id x7OK1Pjs000370 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 24 Aug 2019 16:01:28 -0400
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2019 15:01:25 -0500
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: architecture-discuss@ietf.org, iab@iab.org
Message-ID: <20190824200124.GL60855@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <156641157393.25789.13597724381522897325.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <156641157393.25789.13597724381522897325.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/CYqwvMad-e5dgGwEOoZQVK_SUWM>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: <draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6220bis-03> (Defining the Role and Function of IETF Protocol Parameter Registry Operators)
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2019 20:01:35 -0000
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:19:33AM -0700, IAB Executive Administrative Manager wrote: > This is an announcement of an IETF-wide Call for Comment on > draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6220bis-03. > > The document is being considered for publication as an Informational RFC > within the IAB stream, and is available for inspection at: > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6220bis/> > > The Call for Comment will last until 2019-09-18. Please send comments to > architecture-discuss@ietf.org and iab@iab.org. As preface, I note that the IAB is not formally constrained by the charter of the IASA 2.0 WG, but may choose to act consistently with it (in which case some of these comments are out of scope for being unrelated to the LLC transition). Section 1 references the "IETF Internet Standards Process [RFC2026]", which might be spelled better as BCP 9. Section 2 uses DHCP and IPsec as examples; are these sufficiently well-known that no informative reference to them is needed? Section 2.1 talks about IANA being direted to register values "as directed by [...] Proposed, Draft, and full Internet Standards", which is a bit stale with respect to "Draft" standards (though not strictly inaccurate in the full context). In Section 2.1: o Mailing Lists * The Registry Operator maintains public mailing lists as specified in IANA Considerations [RFC8126]. Such lists are It might be worth clarifying whether "public" means archives, subscription, and/or posting. Reporting * The Registry Operator will submit periodic reports to the IAB concerning the operational performance of the registry function. As an example of the requirements for such reports, the reader is referred to a supplement [MoU_SUPP2018] to the "Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" [RFC2860] that provides service level agreement (SLA) guidelines under which ICANN, the current protocol parameter registry, must operate. I did not think that ICANN was the current primary protocol parameter registry operator. o Intellectual Property Rights and the Registry Operator * All assigned values are to be published and made available free of any charges. * The assignment values may be redistributed without modification. These clauses seem to be in conflict with the earlier text about "special circumstances" that might allow for a closed registry. It's also unclear how this interacts with the Trust's role, as specified in Section 2.4: The IETF Trust may make such regulations as appropriate for the redistribution of assignment values and registry publications. In Section 2.5: In addition, the IETF LLC has the responsibility to ensure long-term access, stability, and uniqueness across all such registries. This Ensuring uniqueness seems rather different from the other two, and on the face of it would seem to require rather invasive interaction with the actual registry operator. Do I misunderstand the sense in which this is intended? Section 4 notes that there are no new protocols, and concludes that there are no new security considerations. To a large extent this is true, and even if there are security considerations to operating a public, available registry and maintaining the integrity of its contents, those concerns are arguably divorced from the administrative structure of how the registry operator is selected. Appendix A notes that the IASA 2.0 update was in 2018, though we're well into 2019 at this point. Thanks, Ben
- Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: <draft-ietf-iasa2-… Bob Hinden
- Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: <draft-ietf-iasa2-… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: <draft-ietf-iasa2-… Olaf Kolkman