IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Idr] Re: [Ext] Re: Suggestions for IANA Considerations (was Re: AD evaluation review of draft-ietf-idr-rfc4360-bis-07)

Amanda Baber <amanda.baber@iana.org> Fri, 05 June 2026 17:03 UTC

Return-Path: <amanda.baber@iana.org>
X-Original-To: idr@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: idr@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49ACAFBD1357; Fri, 5 Jun 2026 10:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1780679018; bh=JYbBq7yujk4fuiSEIalNPyzXNZ2bIDruzbTCz8hSjrQ=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To; b=Xh7ZokPGaG2PZ2sgqrA306K3D9AeMKtr4h+h0UPi+kgZOV+nb9hS90zkiojtemp7c NmdIXogesHzBD2UJo+gYXTwFKEwF55ur02MH3Ws7dE30d/H+7JUy9h7lJZtlpuK0x1 G81d6fR+A5exxdXnfBhYrEvrPG42nID68sQfg198=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iana.org
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XVPsLqVaOkwA; Fri, 5 Jun 2026 10:03:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppa5.dc.icann.org (ppa5.dc.icann.org [192.0.46.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03983FBD01B7; Fri, 5 Jun 2026 09:58:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iana.org; h=cc :content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to; s=202509; bh=FnNcCsRlq/1F060yELCpxR52UNu qMxvPGJpb/mlL77s=; b=XIj600ODnm3ZDwPhMxLEEa0C8vic0eT+L0TUvZf/8oC C5OL4Kv0V6o+iuZwt853GZ33DXBufqmZVe40KFN6yp2fcVHEkYGNlkhNY6Pa3Ho1 P+Flnx1p6y/9c6N7sDnobgipbRCTdkuEGzhs8mkUf4vCq+SZsTfYgscegc3wY2Fu xw9yb+KiMdDRtXoqRRorbu9lG6oDwrJ+IstiDlb56j3LC/UuUG8P68ErLrEM86qB 7UyRMlh4MBS8qjZ52uNtYcqav6iNn/UN5GvXapHD2Eru9ts8KZqYWvVJQ0dsU4Z6 puwpcFOT657NG2rGy2iuRHuhkidAY8KEbJx76LN7VIg==
Received: from MBX112-E2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (out.mail.icann.org [64.78.33.7]) by ppa5.dc.icann.org (8.18.1.7/8.18.1.7) with ESMTPS id 655Gwise006512 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 5 Jun 2026 16:58:44 GMT
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-2.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.130) by MBX112-W2-CO-2.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.2562.37; Fri, 5 Jun 2026 09:58:42 -0700
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-2.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.130]) by MBX112-W2-CO-2.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.130]) with mapi id 15.02.2562.037; Fri, 5 Jun 2026 09:58:42 -0700
From: Amanda Baber <amanda.baber@iana.org>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-idr-rfc4360-bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-rfc4360-bis@ietf.org>, "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] Re: [Idr] Suggestions for IANA Considerations (was Re: AD evaluation review of draft-ietf-idr-rfc4360-bis-07)
Thread-Index: AQHc9PCYrdVb3UJY5EidP/npjLSJGLYwLyRo
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2026 16:58:42 +0000
Message-ID: <0aa1a2cc854648c0a6f84eb58f0ed3d2@iana.org>
References: <CAH6gdPwnTEtCRjCM1CAbqB9J8qxNxLdwbDG7gMXjFZM8t=ncBA@mail.gmail.com> <CAH6gdPxaKKikPrGdNELjMdMPdaO-wFo4Zn8rHA3quOQabNuKng@mail.gmail.com>,<7b33c641-6dbe-49d0-86f9-85010129532b@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <7b33c641-6dbe-49d0-86f9-85010129532b@pfrc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.235]
x-source-routing-agent: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0aa1a2cc854648c0a6f84eb58f0ed3d2ianaorg_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1143,Hydra:6.1.125,FMLib:17.12.100.49 definitions=2026-06-05_03,2026-06-05_02,2025-10-01_01
Message-ID-Hash: N67PWYVAK6W5O6KVCG4FE7CTOUJY4L5Y
X-Message-ID-Hash: N67PWYVAK6W5O6KVCG4FE7CTOUJY4L5Y
X-MailFrom: amanda.baber@iana.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-idr.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Idr] Re: [Ext] Re: Suggestions for IANA Considerations (was Re: AD evaluation review of draft-ietf-idr-rfc4360-bis-07)
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4RUxAu5Usl9tYkv_2NVSsVjnO6U>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:idr-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:idr-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:idr-leave@ietf.org>

Hi Jeff, all,

This revision does work better for IANA. Thanks!

Amanda

________________________________
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2026 6:38 AM
To: Ketan Talaulikar; draft-ietf-idr-rfc4360-bis@ietf.org; idr@ietf. org
Cc: Amanda Baber; Keyur Patel
Subject: [Ext] Re: [Idr] Suggestions for IANA Considerations (was Re: AD evaluation review of draft-ietf-idr-rfc4360-bis-07)

Ketan,

If IANA has reviewed the document and is okay to resolve the registry
linkage issues with the simpler text, I'm happy to support that.  All I
was waiting on is such acknowledgment to avoid needing to undo the work
during IANA review.

Having been involved behind the scenes in some of the registry updates,
I'd rather not deal with another such exercise for the remainder of my
career.

-- Jeff


On 6/5/26 01:17, Ketan Talaulikar wrote:
>
> The purpose is not to undo or disturb the work on IANA registries
> already completed by RFC7153 given that no real change is being
> proposed. It greatly simplifies this document's IANA considerations.
> This proposal follows consultation with Amanda on the IANA team.
>
> There is also a proposal for a "note" to be added to various
> transitive/non-transitive EC registries regarding a recommendation of
> allocating code points which seems like an informal practice that was
> never captured officially. This comes as a suggestion from IANA.

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status