Re: [Hipsec] regarding IANA sections in bis documents

Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> Fri, 15 July 2016 06:42 UTC

Return-Path: <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
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 62D2512B042 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jul 2016 23:42:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.72
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.72 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=fastmail.fm header.b=lYUruuCt; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=f8AJW5zP
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 6i8D2czOG2u7 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jul 2016 23:42:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91CAD12B02B for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jul 2016 23:42:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 387882028A; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 02:42:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 15 Jul 2016 02:42:33 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.fm; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=I0WOOXGqCW8Mj2xASgkx+GVYWaE=; b=lYUruu CtSBIzclRN/BLMmqC6e0lnXtAvSGsdocK8jqeJBBwNPeqmgw12VCWC/EfnHl+fvT XKivfrQLTKwXRO3DUKukb47psKKrfBacw7zQWxVw7FlJJ9nmz8V2iTBtFbeHzqRE Wx7TnYoNgHbnzc6nimq5PqWpT9oGsfKLWncGY=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=I0WOOXGqCW8Mj2x ASgkx+GVYWaE=; b=f8AJW5zPAY5EIpFtxSfXsdE62gvGh1HaYSgZj5Rekdt8bTT azUnZKtEi8v70R156YGMhwxziKyiJNzNPZrNWPRGUQVvnqRYnigXNTxRPGPAQhEj QUK51GehYHaHHlv6TM5xxbvPySfoj+r+XmNu5T78TZa8dmy/jUQQ7ya3BLA8=
X-Sasl-enc: ymrk0Xt147M5NraXGDdra2fRwpd3HaJ4OnF4Gk/jYgyn 1468564952
Received: from [192.168.0.6] (cpc5-nmal20-2-0-cust24.19-2.cable.virginm.net [92.234.84.25]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 79C93F29E1; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 02:42:32 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (13F69)
In-Reply-To: <CAE_dhjvrzMfgWRfy0jQg9XtBepT=6yMicbU5TGA2UiuVgN_b-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 07:53:00 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5B9D2D78-F299-4A9A-A9AF-62FB12D30777@fastmail.fm>
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>
To: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/nVDgPPQeJdDX3ZsIAchqFMweiCA>
Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, 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 06:42:38 -0000

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.

> 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.

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