Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-rfc4005bis-09.txt - part 2

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

On 13/07/2012 06:17, Glen Zorn wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 23:09 +0200, Benoit Claise wrote:
>> Glen,
>>
>>> On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 11:05 +0200, Benoit Claise wrote:
>>>> Dear all, Glen,
>>>>
>>>> Two more points, part of the AD review (I needed a little bit of 
>>>> education before making those points, hence the part 2 in my review)
>>>>
>>>> 1. the NASREQ application is specified in RFC4005bis, but IANA 
>>>> points to RFC3588bis
>>>> See 
>>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/aaa-parameters/aaa-parameters.xml#aaa-parameters-45 
>>>>
>>>> with an entry for Application id= 1, for NASREQ, with the reference 
>>>> [RFC-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-33]
>>>>
>>>> I understand the history: RFC3588 introduced this application id 
>>>> value 1 in the IANA Considerations section.
>>>> However, RFC3588bis, which will obsolete RFC3588, doesn't mention 
>>>> this application id (obviously, because it was assigned already).
>>>> So don't you believe that we should correct this and have, in the 
>>>> IANA Considerations section of 
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dime-rfc4005bis-09.txt , a 
>>>> message basically expressing:
>>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/aaa-parameters/aaa-parameters.xml#aaa-parameters-45 
>>>> should contain
>>>>              Application id= 1, for NASREQ, with the reference 
>>>> [RFC4005bis]
>>>
>>> Obviously, I don't agree.  The value was registered in RFC 3588, and 
>>> there is nothing to "correct" unless of course you insist, as does 
>>> at least one IESG member, that the IANA references always point to 
>>> the technical definition of the registered item (a position so 
>>> untenable as to be absurd).
>> So right now, "application id = 1" points to RFC 3588bis, which is 
>> neither the RFC that registered the value (RFC3588), nor the NASREQ 
>> specification (RFC4005bis), so the pointer to RFC 3588bis seems 
>> pretty useless to me.
>
> I couldn't agree more.
>
>> Anyway, I sent a private email to Michelle Cotton a few days ago (and 
>> I copied her again on this email thread).
>> My advice is to simply follow the IANA guidance.
>
> Actually, I'd like to see some guidance from the IESG; something that 
> is both consistent and completethat states the semantics of the IANA 
> reference field or, lacking that, a little less anal-retention WRT 
> positions which are clearly neither consistent nor complete on those 
> semantics.
Let me follow up and get back to you.
IMHO, this is a blocking factor for the draft next step, i.e. IETF 
last-call: this could be solved in parallel.
So if you want to produce a new draft version, the IETF last-call could 
start.

Regards, Benoit.
>
> ... <mailto:[e-mail]>