Re: [Hipsec] regarding IANA sections in bis documents

Julien Laganier <julien.laganier@gmail.com> Fri, 15 July 2016 02:12 UTC

Return-Path: <julien.laganier@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 40AB612D69C for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jul 2016 19:12:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 cOawHUpAYKUM for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jul 2016 19:12:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22d.google.com (mail-pa0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22d]) (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 3339A12D69E for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jul 2016 19:12:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id dx3so34322060pab.2 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jul 2016 19:12:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version; bh=Owke3vIH9iPitCm45azd00zIxQ0eXOibv9+5ubCOuA4=; b=L0SS4KIarcIMPahOBxK+ZOfK6rhzKOyGr3Q1U91dylsvsKZABUaeDlBXMObaJmfYh6 0lTxE4bq54i/d+Lxp4Xr1QacXd2vre33r9MWTb/H6LgOAIlrrzVsKy4eW9jVjALZUGTj QwmiACdtjVnXc9XbvJECMp/x0yZrCzfwyo//vktfiSdMduHfko7fqykYPTgNliH+A3WF PyTAaaTARf6ggpgb8TZ3z8PE/LPiWUJd+7C05DEzzsC7Atk2gRXQ8w8L+LPqo6CHOrNl ismN+J+mbzC/YfNDdrFDRLDec/aOn87RlZh0ixOae3/7++4xdFbK9zezgBw6KPOX2VJk 8Msw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version; bh=Owke3vIH9iPitCm45azd00zIxQ0eXOibv9+5ubCOuA4=; b=G3hZkyaiW8XVNV3pN15Pt+7TT/fGxTVP4z7GfU2rXomsZ38UeqUvfrAo1sBtPmcrLL USPPok7iQGB1x7Bg9XWMNBpWCHyOvE6qoVep2hktbVr9mtPq/DouEJrOKG8tF8SjVi3G Ojlmp3tU4jGYNfaNeYEz4/QgyDFRkq/eptruZdjBAx2EXhV5KCz9oKUxL/4+45GwNC85 rDHxXLnW+pxJYEgl+nv1vB5GPs4otVjXRaCmc17+LnaMyodOe0ouGABMqilyNkqjIJ+T zLkf/FDWgvQzoLPFqAKrc7mnL9/vlSgPas+LgIEl6ifXml6sXVLFCvCWPOuC38MilhON LxJw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKMd3bEU7YxFe9v7dBK1JdhHQvB7kBDPId0GtXbiJiekeUqods0KvImZYmheg+I1g==
X-Received: by 10.66.73.166 with SMTP id m6mr9722414pav.122.1468548745753; Thu, 14 Jul 2016 19:12:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.outlook.com (ec2-52-33-57-33.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com. [52.33.57.33]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s23sm5936943pfd.23.2016.07.14.19.12.24 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 14 Jul 2016 19:12:24 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 02:12:24 +0000 (UTC)
From: Julien Laganier <julien.laganier@gmail.com>
To: Terry Manderson <terry.manderson@icann.org>, Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A96E41D35E363781.FCFA487D-4FE4-46D4-AB2E-7B93A52F1BA3@mail.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <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> <51E130EF-483A-497F-99EC-73C86CFE8906@icann.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_3393_168776638.1468548744270"
X-Mailer: Outlook for iOS and Android
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/YatiEtdOXdJ3lBIvZ6qU1MUwnRI>
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 02:12:28 -0000

My mistake, sorry for the confusion and thanks for clarifying. 
Best,

--julien




On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 7:07 PM -0700, "Terry Manderson" <terry.manderson@icann.org>; wrote:










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  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 : .
> IANA is requested to replace references to [RFCXXXX] by references to
> this document in the the  registry.
> 
> This document also requests IANA to make these additional  new allocation> in ".
> 
> 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  wrote:
>> On 8 Jul 2016, at 10:53, Tom Henderson wrote:
>> 
>>>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Alexey Melnikov 
>>>> 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: . This
>> document mades these additional requests: "
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 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