Re: [saag] SSH & Ntruprime

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

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.

On 3/25/2024 2:17 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:
>
> Has the IETF committed itself - through an actual public discussion - 
> of making the IDs archival? Keeping them online - yes.  Keeping them 
> at a fixed URL, I think not and I think RFC8447 was a mistake. 
> Referencing RFC8477 as precedent for Murray's question seems problematic.
>
> If you really want to know, perhaps ask tools-discuss email?  Or 
> search the email archives.
>
> Citing RFC 8447 as precedent is exactly the right thing to do, since 
> it’s a standards-track IETF stream RFC.
>
> I'd recommend revoking the notes on the existing registries that allow 
> references to IDs. And, going forward, request the  IESG  refrain from 
> approving any further notes similar to those on RFC8447 until there's 
> an actual consensus and a plan to support "archivalness" of the ID 
> series (e.g. with a fixed URL and with a firm requirement that closes 
> the path of updating the ID).
>
> It seems a bit premature to recommend actions on the basis of “I think 
> not.”
>
So you're saying that a registry update document that most people don't 
give a damn about (along with SNMP mibs and YANG modules and ASN1 
module) and that probably was seen by maybe a few dozen people if that, 
that had IANA add a note to the registry gets to change the meaning of 
the IDs - as written in the standard boiler plate - from "not citeable" 
to "citeable" for all future RFCs?

To restate "I believe not."  To be clearer, consensus to change major 
things (and this would be a major change) requires informed consensus of 
the community, and I don't believe a fairly opaque note in a WG document 
that most would consider registry boilerplate qualifies.

If you want to do this, I'd suggest you propose a change to the ID 
boilerplate that removes the language: "It is inappropriate to use 
Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as 
"work in progress." "   I'd also suggest having a discussion with the 
LLC, tools and IANA on what is actually needed to support that change in 
terms of process, server support and tools support.

Move that change through the IETF mailing list, not the TLS list (and 
definitely NOT the RSWG list).  That will make sure you have the support 
to have stable references for IDs going into the future that aren't 
shredded by a website redo.

Later, Mike