Re: [Gen-art] [Dtls-iot] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-dice-profile-14

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 15/09/2015 01:27, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> Hi Brian, Hannes,
> 
> On 08/09/15 20:24, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>>>> The downref to RFC7251 was not mentioned in the last call and that RFC isn't
>>>> in the downref registry. ((Yes, I've been in the IESG and I know how
>>>> annoying this can be, but it's a process glitch.))
>>>>
>> Thanks for pointing this out.
> 
> Yep, mea culpa for not spotting that. However, RFC 7252 (CoAP, a PS)
> also has a normative reference to 7251, on which basis I think we can
> safely claim that this is no longer a downref. Actually, it looks
> like the downref also wasn't called out in the CoAP IETF LC, but I
> guess the sky didn't fall, so that's ok:-) And recall that the
> definition of an ok downref is one that's "accepted by the community"
> (says [1]) and I think CoAP is as is AES-CCM.
> 
> I plan to add 7251 to the downref registry [2] shortly, and to put the
> DICE profile on the Oct 1 IESG telechat. If however, that's too much
> of a process sin, there's still time to do another IETF LC on the
> DICE profile without affecting the timing. So while I figure we're ok
> without that, I'll do the 2nd IETF LC if anyone yells now.

I promise not to appeal. The downref rules are quite creaky and annoying,
so I'd support them being overhauled anyway, as long as egregious downrefs
can still be prevented or appealed.

While I'm typing - I'm quite happy with the -16 draft and if that comes
up for a further review I will call it "Ready".

Regards,

   Brian

> 
> Cheers,
> S.
> 
> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3967#section-3
> [2] https://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DownrefRegistry
> 
> 
>