Re: [saag] SSH & Ntruprime

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

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.

I copied my comments to the document shepherd and Responsible Area 
Director for RFC 8447 in case they may be able to help with the above query.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy