[Hipsec] regarding IANA sections in bis documents

Tom Henderson <tomhend@u.washington.edu> Fri, 08 July 2016 15:53 UTC

Return-Path: <tomhend@u.washington.edu>
X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B9FF12D1B9 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 08:53:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.626
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.626 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yUWu4N6x2-q3 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 08:53:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout23.cac.washington.edu (mxout23.cac.washington.edu [140.142.32.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2275512D7C3 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 08:53:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hymn01.u.washington.edu (hymn01.u.washington.edu [140.142.9.110]) by mxout23.cac.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP id u68FrGQS015317 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 8 Jul 2016 08:53:17 -0700
Received: from hymn01.u.washington.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hymn01.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP id u68FrGHX014811; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 08:53:16 -0700
Received: from localhost (Unknown UID 21258@localhost) by hymn01.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+Submit-local) with ESMTP id u68FrEYR014797; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 08:53:15 -0700
X-Auth-Received: from [73.239.169.224] by hymn01.u.washington.edu via HTTP; Fri, 08 Jul 2016 08:53:14 PDT
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 08:53:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tom Henderson <tomhend@u.washington.edu>
To: hipsec@ietf.org
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1607080853140.31735@hymn01.u.washington.edu>
User-Agent: Web Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1302 2010-07-20)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
X-PMX-Version: 6.2.1.2493963, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2016.7.8.154217
X-PMX-Server: mxout23.cac.washington.edu
X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIIIII, Probability=9%, Report=' MULTIPLE_RCPTS 0.1, HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05, SUPERLONG_LINE 0.05, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_1900_1999 0, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, DATE_TZ_NA 0, LEGITIMATE_NEGATE 0, MSG_THREAD 0, MULTIPLE_RCPTS_RND 0, __ANY_URI 0, __CP_URI_IN_BODY 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __FORWARDED_MSG 0, __FRAUD_BODY_WEBMAIL 0, __FRAUD_WEBMAIL 0, __HAS_CC_HDR 0, __HAS_FROM 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HTTPS_URI 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __MULTIPLE_RCPTS_CC_X2 0, __MULTIPLE_URI_TEXT 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_START 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __TO_NO_NAME 0, __URI_IN_BODY 0, __URI_NS , __URI_WITH_PATH 0, __USER_AGENT 0'
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/-1nfZUtzeKNWCWx-uDKSgGLl9VE>
Cc: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>, ben@nostrum.com, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm
Subject: [Hipsec] regarding IANA sections in bis documents
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." <hipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hipsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:hipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 15:53:41 -0000

> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>; wrote:
>> Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-07: Discuss
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> The IANA considerations section does not seem to stand alone without
>> reading RFC 5204. As you are obsoleting RFC 5204, readers shouldn't be
>> expected to read it in order to discover original IANA instructions.
>> I think you should copy information from RFC 5204.
>>

On 07/08/2016 07:17 AM, Julien Laganier wrote:
> Hi Alexey,
> 
> The IANA Considerations used to be a copy of RFC 5204 but someone
> asked that it be cleaned up. I will copy it back in the next revision.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> --julien

I was probably the person suggesting the current writeup, based on my previous interaction with IANA regarding RFC 7401 publication.

Before making any IANA section changes, I would like to ask for further clarification, because it seems to me that the guidance being given now conflicts with instructions we received from IANA when revising RFC 5201 to become RFC 7401.

When RFC 5201 was updated to RFC 7401, we originally followed the "copy forward the IANA section" approach, but were told by IANA that they preferred that we instead state the updates to be taken on existing registries rather than repeating earlier actions that were already taken to create the registries.

That led to the following revisions (where you can see, when using the IETF rfcdiff tool, in version 14 it is a copy forward while version 15 it updates the existing registries):

https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis-14.txt
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis-15.txt

- Tom