Re: [AVTCORE] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-avtcore-aria-srtp-10: (with COMMENT)

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

> On Aug 2, 2017, at 12:59 AM, Roni Even <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> I think that this point is a general problem and should be addressed as a review of the registration procedures for Mikey, DTLS and SDES.
> The lack of consistency started this whole discussion.

It is my understanding that the inconsistency is intentional, in that people wanted a higher bar to add new things for SDES because they wanted to discourage the expansion of its use. It’s reasonable to discuss whether that still makes sense. 

But I don’t think we want to block _this_ draft on that discussion—that’s the reason we removed the SDES registration from it in the first place.

> 
> Roni Even
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: יום ד 02 אוגוסט 2017 01:00
>> To: Mirja Kühlewind
>> Cc: The IESG; [e-mail]; Roni Even; draft-ietf-avtcore-aria-
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-avtcore-aria-srtp-
>> 10: (with COMMENT)
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 11:30 AM, Mirja Kühlewind <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> COMMENT:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> This actually looks more like a document that we would rather
>>> typically publish by the ISE (as it is describing a method employed by one
>> specific entity only).
>>> I do not object to it publication as informational and I do understand
>>> that this mostly due to the registration the in the MIKEY registry,
>>> however, i would like to note that IESG Approval would have been
>>> another option for this registration.
>>> 
>> 
>> I think if this work were started from scratch in its current form, I would
>> agree with you. But the original version of this draft would have required
>> standards-action. That text has been removed, but by that time most of the
>> work had already been done in the working group. Given that this has
>> already completed IETF last call, the least-effort path seems to be to approve
>> it as an informational RFC on the IETF stream.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> Ben.