Re: [saag] SSH & Ntruprime

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

Folks , Randy is right.  

If this discussion is intended to spark a rule change, please keep in mind that these rules weren’t made for the security area, but for the whole of IANA. Please don’t damage the parts you don’t know about. 

Sent from mobile, sorry for terse

> On 26. Mar 2024, at 04:20, Randy Presuhn <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi -
> 
>> On 2024-03-25 12:50 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
>> Hi Mike,
>> At 11:49 AM 25-03-2024, Michael StJohns wrote:
>>> Context for the IETF list.  A set of IANA notes were included in RFC8447 that allowed IDs to be considered as satisfying "Specification Required" for the purpose of issuing code points in IANA registries.  The IANA requires stable references for a Specification Required.  However, to quote from the ID boilerplate,  "It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
>>> 
>>> These two seem to be in conflict.
>> The "Specification Required" policy is defined in "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" (BCP 26) as a formal public specification.  The BCP also contains some information about the intent behind the policy.  I'll quote some text from the BCP as it may easier for the occassional reader:
>>   "Publication of an RFC is an ideal means of achieving this
>>    requirement, but Specification Required is intended to also
>>    cover the case of a document published outside of the RFC path,
>>    including informal documentation."
>> There is also another policy which states "RFC Required" which is a bar higher in comparison with "Specification Required".
>> The "IANA Registry Updates for TLS and DTLS" (RFC 8447) is on the Standards Track.  The RFC is about instructions for the designed experts and IANA.  Section 12, for example, states that "It is sufficient to have an Internet-Draft (that is posted and never published as an RFC) or a document from another standards body, industry consortium, university site, etc."
>> There is a conflict between BCP 26 and RFC 8447.
> ...
> 
> What is the conflict you see?  The text you cited seems to me to present
> no conflict.  A posted Internet-Draft certainly seems to fit within
> the realm of "a document published outside of the RFC path, including
> informal documentation."
> 
> Randy
>