IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [saag] SSH & Ntruprime

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Mon, 25 March 2024 22:23 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1124EC180B7E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Mar 2024 15:23:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jjxgu_8goKdY for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Mar 2024 15:23:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30031C14F6BD for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Mar 2024 15:23:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1rosjI-000IJB-NL; Mon, 25 Mar 2024 18:23:44 -0400
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 18:23:37 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@alumni.stanford.edu>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [saag] SSH & Ntruprime
Message-ID: <7FCB15A13F0E3B6656CB151C@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <265a55d6-2a41-4119-81b3-ed7a29834dfa@alumni.stanford.edu>
References: <CABcZeBPWjXvLh06-DBO3Z0sfeb2hgzqzaSZ-J2-TZ7qesrSraA@mail.gmail.com> <64e81f68-5169-4469-b5a0-2851da912091@lear.ch> <CABcZeBOLKMJb5pw59J072FsfeMFcoz1eZYxa1qpXDLW0nAU0cg@mail.gmail.com> <7b4d38b8-b4c1-412b-8287-bd44d0c512a3@lear.ch> <CABcZeBOQYp49i_JjE7vdg6AjxwyvktW7LFTJ4Mh3jt0bmxxxDQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAN8C-_+QUpU2bTeSFmLB7v1qLirTXtypR2U7D54JeEaeKfSp+Q@mail.gmail.c om> <CABcZeBNtE6PtEdmh-2rTC5y9U7yEL8JVNo1HMjZtOQw-DHjXQQ@mail.gmail.com> <88a1bb16-b0ef-49b3-a661-c343b4faa7a9@nthpermutation.com> <CABcZeBOo7e=jgrkMa4iXYy-x_2o6eZjTpEyezQiu7AKHk4ZhFQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAN8C-_JKbJLB6EU+8zUoeUgYVMkR4ErkSdpvuzr4LYoNcRKccA@mail.gmail.c om> <180b6873-d917-4a6f-9fa7-b174e0afae66@nthpermutation.com> <49C35FC4-17C2-48BD-86D4-5D18FD9CF860@akamai.com> <5f281744-d23e-4c54-aabd-741ba2952e45@nthpermutation.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20240325122757.133f0950@elandnews.com> <c140a11a-7930-471a-a3bc-5d4362e5889a@alumni.stanford.edu> <6.2.5.6.2.20240325134324.15278ce8@elandnews.com> <265a55d6-2a41-4119-81b3-ed7a29834dfa@alumni.stanford.edu>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/K1z_9E9MCTpxj6FwcS04XdFkrF8>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF-Discussion. This is the most general IETF mailing list, intended for discussion of technical, procedural, operational, and other topics for which no dedicated mailing lists exist." <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:23:51 -0000


--On Monday, March 25, 2024 14:02 -0700 Randy Presuhn
<randy_presuhn@alumni.stanford.edu> wrote:

> Hi -
> 
> On 2024-03-25 1:51 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
>> Hi Randy,
>> At 01:19 PM 25-03-2024, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>>> 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."
>> 
>> This takes the discussion to what Mike pointed out at 
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/FqmdAQY_C7jOGh_KV-
>> HkC5MP7Xs
>> 
>> I also mentioned "formal public specification".  If I am not
>> mistaken,  that would include standards from other bodies or
>> national standards for  which a code point is required.
> 
> If it's ok to cite an I-D as "work in progress," how is that
> different from "informal documentation" in any meaningful way?

If it is being used as part of the definition for an entry in an
IANA registry, that makes it "reference material", not just a
work in progress.  In addition, if it were actually a work in
progress, that would make it unsuitable for part of the
definition for a registry entry because it would be an odd
indeed to have a registration of a moving target rather than a
stable definition.

I think that may be just a different way to express Mike's
concern.

best,
   john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email