[art] Re: AD Evaluation: draft-barnes-sframe-iana-256-00

[Aron Rosenberg <[e-mail]>]

On Jan 21, 2026, at 4:23 PM, Martin Thomson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2026, at 09:48, Aron Rosenberg wrote:
>> However, since RFC 9605 is issued and mandates specification required 
>> as the only way to get new entries added to the registry, there was no 
>> point in having a Change Controller column that always listed IETF,
> 
> That's not how it works.  The Change Controller column is important, but it doesn't have to be the IETF.  It is whichever entity (including individuals) that is considered responsible for the evolution of the associated codepoint.
> 
>> Most of the recent RFC’s that establish Cipher Suite IANA 
>> registries don’t include a Change Controller column in them (see MLS, 
>> COAP, EDHOC, and others).
> 
> They should.  What if there is a need to contact the responsible entity?  What if the entity wants to evolve the definition of the codepoint?  Or just update the URL that the specification is at.
> 
> I'd strongly recommend leaving the column in place.

I updated the draft to version -01 to restore / not remove the Change Controller field from the registry and also applied the typo fix that Orie noted for the auth_subkey description.