Re: Secdir last call review of draft-nottingham-rfc5785bis-08

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

> On 18 Feb 2019, at 1:35 pm, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>>> If the document says to see the registry for registration instructions, there had better be instructions there, no?
>> 
>> Yes, but if we put the instructions in the RFC, people are likely to follow them -- even when they have been
>> changed down the line. Also, it creates confusion as to whether it's necessary to update the RFC if they change.
>> 
>> The text we're discussing is sourced from RC8288:
>>  https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8288#section-4.2
>> ... which didn't have any such discussion around it. If we're going to continue this, I'd like to hear from IANA
>> itself about what level of instruction it'd like. As I've said, the last time around (8288), I got feedback from them
>> that such a level of detail in the RFC was counterproductive, and that we could trust folks -- and our
>> process -- to do the right thing.
> 
> I agree with all that, but that still misses the point:
> When someone reads in the RFC that they should follow the instructions
> in the registry, and they go look at the registry and see nothing,
> what are they to do?

Because, by the time this becomes an RFC, I (the expert of the registry, IESG still willing), will work with IANA to get that set up. Probably during AUTH48.




--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/