Re: [Hipsec] regarding IANA sections in bis documents
Terry Manderson <terry.manderson@icann.org> Fri, 15 July 2016 02:07 UTC
Return-Path: <terry.manderson@icann.org>
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 D349A12D941 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jul 2016 19:07:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.488
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.488 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-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 eWri_H-1yRKq for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jul 2016 19:07:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (pfe112-ca-2.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8ACCC12D8A3 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jul 2016 19:07:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-2.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Thu, 14 Jul 2016 19:07:02 -0700
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1178.000; Thu, 14 Jul 2016 19:07:02 -0700
From: Terry Manderson <terry.manderson@icann.org>
To: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Hipsec] regarding IANA sections in bis documents
Thread-Index: AQHR2TD8kptu5IJdTk+Fsf/GCrMm/qAPMCIAgAoABID//5id9w==
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 02:07:00 +0000
Message-ID: <51E130EF-483A-497F-99EC-73C86CFE8906@icann.org>
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>
In-Reply-To: <CAE_dhjvrzMfgWRfy0jQg9XtBepT=6yMicbU5TGA2UiuVgN_b-w@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-AU
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/UqcjxGodqVc-80-RSBkgesC903M>
Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>, HIP <hipsec@ietf.org>
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, 15 Jul 2016 02:07:07 -0000
Just to clarify I am NOT from IANA. I do work at ICANN but my role here is as INT area AD. - Gorilla typing on iPhone. > On 15 Jul 2016, at 09:17, 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>. > 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. > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Hipsec mailing list > Hipsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
- Re: [Hipsec] regarding IANA sections in bis docum… Ben Campbell
- [Hipsec] regarding IANA sections in bis documents Tom Henderson
- Re: [Hipsec] regarding IANA sections in bis docum… Julien Laganier
- Re: [Hipsec] regarding IANA sections in bis docum… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Hipsec] regarding IANA sections in bis docum… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [Hipsec] regarding IANA sections in bis docum… Julien Laganier
- Re: [Hipsec] regarding IANA sections in bis docum… Terry Manderson
- Re: [Hipsec] regarding IANA sections in bis docum… Julien Laganier