RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis

"Roni Even" <> Fri, 27 May 2016 11:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27F4F12D9C9; Fri, 27 May 2016 04:36:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F3kU59cUy9OA; Fri, 27 May 2016 04:36:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C43212D5D1; Fri, 27 May 2016 04:36:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id n129so268503265wmn.1; Fri, 27 May 2016 04:36:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=D7AuvWtGV5kSmWZW1jFg+p41PcnANN87zD8JygpAzDM=; b=XqA3xIBmY9lS9z0I0WqKx1QCxgX4O2o/Ro4PIB+7hB56Z68kaZDSd9uoA4f93jA0Di y2aY3L0+KrkTkImj1Mwu/u864uZk182F0vqrBkxcGLcDBqdvvDqUvKukKyafYHYTel+L 04zMLAFOw/9LXXPjSPGkrufum+42kUwH9FYbxVHu/ZRM/+mYXTOTpaWiWNGJnDDhxqRm 6+M+mzGece9H1OlXQLD21MUC/oHtOVBC8B0IvfFwttepRPzm1+XUXffdnD03xK/0RcHq L95kTNHduWvfVoAxKIczXu2V7v1YZ/xYrPFmy/yNxi4EojVTRHqSvun8qavFhNnMvVTM p0HQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=D7AuvWtGV5kSmWZW1jFg+p41PcnANN87zD8JygpAzDM=; b=ZESGhxQpnb2WBxDHN5urVobrEWVDDsbRyuAA9gtFh0F8eVpKuvRThKfWCHf/+NQRC6 hGyg2Wcb6MQR5JFClACB8ZI+F0Mv8q+6X3X5LnmWs/KvB+QU5l84+VR5SJsNXzx9bwRP 4TwF4y6ixYLonX7H2sn0BcFwyKKYEsxCcxQTr5fx2yTN4zLzrdiU3LX0PQyjdyGCL3qS bjEPPvncVUfYVHBEog//FWOnhsSP2sA/CzekqLf062Q7KjIJSkfFgNJHYbU4+uDA7MuT dD8nA7mePy7wdfOogcwIo5GcqFzw2r2nPqlTQZGUkp7tpUp/ZCvBAI5WiGoMJc4Xy7G9 DW6Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJgjZkdXr96KDN7KC8d7aLCmWAMWJ1dAiT3mY1U+0IqB1Q1NdI9hATwp/J1mNq4kQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id t9mr9074997wmt.89.1464348967734; Fri, 27 May 2016 04:36:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from RoniPC ( []) by with ESMTPSA id lm1sm19011900wjc.25.2016. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 27 May 2016 04:36:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Roni Even" <>
To: "'Barry Leiba'" <>
References: <007601d1b58b$79f3afb0$6ddb0f10$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 14:35:10 +0300
Message-ID: <03ce01d1b80b$d4a06ed0$7de14c70$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQKilLRPiWd1xYSYhcMpg/zIyTZtygFLS6HsniCRGcA=
Content-Language: he
Archived-At: <>
Cc: 'General Area Review Team' <>,, 'IETF discussion list' <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 11:36:11 -0000

Hi Barry,
Here is a problem I encounter with the registration policy due to IESG not verifying the policy for registration.
The first registry requires standard action

This one has specification required

this one has IETF Review or IESG Approval

Yet these three are similar and a cipher will register in all three but may need different documents instead of one to register the cypher suite. 
This is a real problem and we ended up with one Informational and one standard track document.

I think that there should be normative language to the IESG to verify consistency


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On Behalf Of
> Barry Leiba
> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 3:49 PM
> To: Roni Even
> Cc: General Area Review Team; draft-leiba-cotton-iana-
>; IETF discussion list
> Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis
> Hi, Roni, and thanks for the review.
> > I am wondering about the lack of normative language for example in
> > section
> > 4.11
> >
> >    “When reviewing a document that asks IANA to create a new registry
> > or change a registration policy to any policy more stringent than
> > Expert Review or Specification Required, the IESG should ask for
> > justification to ensure that more relaxed policies have been
> > considered and that the strict policy is the right one.”
> >
> > Is the “should” normative here?
> Perhaps you're confusing "normative language" with "2119 key words":
> text doesn't need 2119 key words for it to be normative, and this document
> quite intentionally does not cite RFC 2119.
> The example you give is a perfect one to show why we're not trying to
> shoehorn key words that were meant to give instructions for interoperable
> protocols into a document that's giving advice for writing and interpreting
> IANA Considerations.  The sentence above means exactly what it says in
> English: it's advising the IESG, but it is ultimately the IESG's decision.
> Barry