Re: [Hipsec] regarding IANA sections in bis documents

Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 05 August 2016 00:44 UTC

Return-Path: <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
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 9BB0912D6B3 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 17:44:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 wHpTTqIJjwu3 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 17:44:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22a.google.com (mail-oi0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5403312B011 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 17:44:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id 4so134806101oih.2 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 04 Aug 2016 17:44:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ES5mS8AvIOQ9UmdYX05mZazeCXm09HKy4McX9Q7T9ns=; b=0zQEPDFGwncqDzhzMPmjqlcsAl0wfz5KqdQtyjv427u3AmxA7Bg1AIH1fm7AHYtynu esvHhUOjwFymcdbdYPV4MJ7UVQClZ34uCbwvJ3g0pJKygiDOdyNqcpXtX6qcBhiwfhRc i2vTeINC4Kv+tR0ZekdkCGUIAz2jCWejyMAuyAfgbNu2KQ324+D7pzxcURPUceoNqLe/ 7jxJxWcA4FTDxnoH9aACzziBiyvI741uHyOf7nZ/fIBCJE69ytin8Q95M3to78ZyH3/A AKHcBNN8UaA/nywZsfoih65tQVresyQ/fE82Q2EnceRd8t0Pi8pjyV8x+8YJ6SPDcQn8 CdYQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ES5mS8AvIOQ9UmdYX05mZazeCXm09HKy4McX9Q7T9ns=; b=RQG8DlNEEu5zzYWfO3OAe3pk1mX0fE6+/ZDNcjWKmhVTw5BnnEBkM4ZBLDBHbRwDi4 Ok7optSIYwleFRLvRMruoTG+xY4ZigT3uCshw7vZHN7rQbs3PyrMNuEHhkXH3mC5C/0w g8Mht8S6nD3v2fVXjUZvJyAtckrJiO80cvft5eAqUWhV/1hs2eK1HgJtQ3AnAuoRQUKv rZPArEEmA06zmE2vQQ4FPfA+701FOIQYxPDhcKk9ku13fmYX364QeSBu0SZMiy0kXyVr I7om8Fq1Hfs9PrGS3eskIyTwRAGi9fAGk2bJ73nN6lHv6GHGbA/p6iS/x3PGM2gpbZqk o/OA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouvlRE4Nc9nl1xIaR7sPrsnAFyBPhIVsBbupXZd2JVQBwrCNYNL/BoC4utKGojlIrLUqiWdj+dwcdLNHdw==
X-Received: by 10.202.84.72 with SMTP id i69mr45795699oib.93.1470357874723; Thu, 04 Aug 2016 17:44:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.63.52 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 17:44:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <C7E94AA7-1A44-4406-A4EE-1901A842EFF9@nostrum.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1607080853140.31735@hymn01.u.washington.edu> <1D5C6666-54B6-4DFA-9E3D-D32068EF2B3C@nostrum.com> <CAE_dhjvrzMfgWRfy0jQg9XtBepT=6yMicbU5TGA2UiuVgN_b-w@mail.gmail.com> <5B9D2D78-F299-4A9A-A9AF-62FB12D30777@fastmail.fm> <C7E94AA7-1A44-4406-A4EE-1901A842EFF9@nostrum.com>
From: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 17:44:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CAE_dhjsZCqZNSgW7cRgwVTU2Tkp9ouUOLzXwfFCfayV8vvTADg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/8wJP3e9YxKmr2rGeb2ZsOq9o1Iw>
Cc: HIP <hipsec@ietf.org>, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
Subject: Re: [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, 05 Aug 2016 00:44:37 -0000

Hi Ben and Alexey,

FYI, I've updated the three drafts with the proposal above for IANA
considerations update.

Best,

--julien

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:17 AM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>; wrote:
>
>
>> On Jul 15, 2016, at 8:53 AM, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>; wrote:
>>
>> Hi Julien,
>>
>>> On 15 Jul 2016, at 02:17, Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>; wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Ben & Alexey,
>>>
>>> Thanks for clarifying. We've discussed your suggestion with Terry
>>> Manderson from IANA and have agreed on proceeding as follows:
>>>
>>> RFCXXXX, obsoleted by this document, made the following IANA
>>> allocation in <insert registry name>: <describe existing allocations>.
>>
>> ... and the allocation policy.
>
> Yes, that too.
>
>>
>>> IANA is requested to replace references to [RFCXXXX] by references to
>>> this document in the the <insert existing registry name> registry.
>>>
>>> This document also requests IANA to make these additional <describe
>>> new allocation> in <insert existing or new registry>".
>>>
>>> If this is okay with you both I will proceed with updating
>>> draft-ietf-hip-rfc520{3,4,5}-bis accordingly.
>>
>> Sounds good to me.
>
> Me, too.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ben
>
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Alexey
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> --julien
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>; wrote:
>>>> On 8 Jul 2016, at 10:53, Tom Henderson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In my opinion, you need both. The text needs to make it clear what actions
>>>> IANA needs to take _now_. But it also needs to fully document any
>>>> registries/registrations so that other readers can find it, keeping in mind
>>>> that an obsoleted RFC is, well, obsolete. Note that this is usually at least
>>>> somewhat different from simply copying the old text forward. This is
>>>> especially true when updating the reference for a registry or registration
>>>> to point to the bis document; this only makes sense if the bis draft
>>>> actually describes that registry or registration.
>>>>
>>>> I think it's perfectly reasonable to say something of the form of "RFCXXXX,
>>>> obsoleted by this document, made these requests of IANA: <old-stuff>. This
>>>> document mades these additional requests: <new-stuff>"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>
>