[dtn-interest] Re(2): IANA registry for LTP (and the BP?)

["Peter Lovell" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stephen,

I think that having a registry is a good idea although I think that the
ciphersuite details are not quite firm enough yet. 

"Good plan - go for it"

Cheers.....Peter



On Wed, May 7, 2008, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>Ok, so that got a stunning response - guess registries aren't
>what get people here excited, which is fair enough:-)
>
>But the IANA folks've now asked as well, so we need some
>kind of answer.
>
>Assuming no further input, I'm going to propose that we
>ask IANA to set up LTP registries for the extension types and
>ciphersuites, with the update rule for both being "specification
>required" where the specification can be an RFC (of any type)
>or any other SDO's publicly available specification (wording
>for that might be tricky so we might get reduced to needing
>an RFC).
>
>I'll ask them to do that tomorrow, so yell now if it's a problem.
>We can address the BP registry issues later.
>
>Stephen.
>
>Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> The comment we got about LTP extensions was:
>> 
>>  > An IANA registry for LTP extension values seems appropriate. Since
>>  > [LTPSPEC] does not establish one, it should probably happen here to
>>  > assign the two values used here and have a place to register more.
>>  >
>>  > Since the extension space is small, I recommend expert review as the
>>  > policy for new assignments.
>> 
>> I think (anyone know for sure?) that the relevant guidelines here
>> are BCP 26. [1]
>> 
>> So the questions are whether or not to do this for LTP extensions
>> (and maybe ciphersuites) and secondly for extensible bits of the
>> BP (block types, ciphersuites, anything else?).
>> 
>> And if we do want any IANA registries, then what rules should
>> we adopt for updates?
>> 
>> I guess there is the possibility that CCSDS's DTN group might
>> want to extend LTP and/or the BP, so maybe it is a good idea
>> for us to think about this now. If anyone knows of other groups
>> that might want to create their own extensions or blocks that'd
>> be useful input here too.
>> 
>> As I said in the other mail, my plan for LTP would be to create
>> a new draft-irtf-dtnrg-ltp-iana to document whatever it is we
>> think is the right thing to do. (If anyone wants to take on
>> doing that, let Kevin and I know.)
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>> 
>> Stephen.
>> 
>> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp26
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> dtn-interest mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> http://maillists.intel-research.net/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest
>> 
>_______________________________________________
>dtn-interest mailing list
>[e-mail]
>http://maillists.intel-research.net/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest