Re: [Curdle] Time to Review IANA SSH Registries Policies?

Phillip Hallam-Baker <> Mon, 08 February 2021 03:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8B4F3A0FFB for <>; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 19:41:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.4
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HNbI-ybiOkoM for <>; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 19:41:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37DD53A1001 for <>; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 19:41:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id e132so13194173ybh.8 for <>; Sun, 07 Feb 2021 19:41:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MXCrzXksivXS4xZtBf5byDWWtrxYjgXa54uuoAotpxs=; b=m28GWJR4ngcALB7s0SNY3rlc/PWtsRN+RxrpCCke9zWebYqOeBj/rq9WCyyrZoE3FY 4WrPG7Qx9xBRYlgUzj1BzVc2B8pyWriyIfvQXc+w+JQ54D+Gp8ERJYKmSwt+Y3LmWApz c5bqLlnlm9IAjc7CdPrpW5rImm5aDtAyOlA35Px+3H5b1P/QHWUAeys5Jlke85ds0oay r+za55oDpQ1ecTtuQllW2SI73bxw5KAro/7UZi7qIrIEnYczvVjnO3fBlIdvAIZN6GaW SoRVC45JoErkx9Z5iOy7oksNh+4gnXclCAkKzGmGmpKrVbG75r6tfW7RfYpe0u3Wf0eI bLAg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5321HvUvoCcXgfcE8eAUr4PziQ8xTs3DEBSos2riSpRENJYyzOU4 xA8qow01pn65oiSLGm/3VME04Rnt2DMIQxcF6QtU+A69tNA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx+XUugCMeHWCIC7mkqg/bipY2cHCEmPsr+74kuCq4k7sm1QEh27lZro+M2E7P07CDgta+s3g9LPkX4yEwnJfs=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:7397:: with SMTP id o145mr24143013ybc.523.1612755700266; Sun, 07 Feb 2021 19:41:40 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <>
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2021 22:41:28 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Peter Gutmann <>
Cc: "Salz, Rich" <>, Curdle List <>, Sean Turner <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009fbc6605bacaf249"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Curdle] Time to Review IANA SSH Registries Policies?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of potential new security area wg." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2021 03:41:43 -0000


Registration processes can very easily turn into ring kissing requirements.
And especially so when the authority is a voluntary organization.

Lots of people get really, really excited at the idea that they are adding
value by preventing work that might lead to vague, consequences that they
can't quite put their finger on.

And then when people go through the process and end up waiting six months
for those people to make up their minds, well we are a
voluntary organization so people should thank us for the very important
work we do.

I have a rather different view. I think that when someone puts themselves
in the way of someone else's critical path, they are making a commitment to
deal with the issue expeditiously and if that isn't possible, the answer is
to not make things critical path.

Given the number of times we have people pointing out the IESG are
overworked, we should look to get out of the way as much as possible, not
stand athwart the tides of history yelling stop.

On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 6:44 PM Peter Gutmann <>

> Phillip Hallam-Baker <> writes:
> >Restrictive registration requirements contradict the principle of
> >'permissionless innovation'. If the IETF is the place you go to get
> >permission to innovate, we are doing it wrong.
> +1.  To give a real-world experience of "expert review", when I tried to go
> through the process on $unnamed-wg there was an experts group that you
> couldn't contact who had a non-public mailing list where decisions were
> made
> in secret, but that didn't matter since there was no way to contact them.
> Eventually it got sorted out by one or two people involved in the process
> going out of their way to help, but when done as it should have been the
> process was more reminiscent of Kafka than the IETF.
> Peter.