RE: [Ips] AD review of draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodearch-key-02

works for me - julo

Black_David@emc.com 
16/10/06 16:45

To
Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, <lars.eggert@netlab.nec.de>
cc
<ips@ietf.org>
Subject
RE: [Ips] AD review of draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodearch-key-02

Julian and Lars,

We could get clever here.  The crucial language in RFC 3720 says:

                 For IANA registered keys the string following X# must be
registered
                 with IANA and the use of the key MUST be described by an
informational RFC.

and there's similar language for Y# digest formats and Z# authentication
methods.

Given the level of review this draft has received (not only on the list,
but also in Montreal, I put crucial pieces of this draft's text on the
projector for word-by-word review), I don't think there would be any
problem with this draft becoming a proposed standard RFC, and it could
then update RFC 3720 to change "informational RFC" to "informational,
experimental or standards track RFC" in all three places.

I would want to issue a WG Last Call on these changes (publish
nodearch-key as proposed, standard, update RFC 3720 to allow
experimental
and standards-track RFCs for X# keys, Y# digests, and Z# authentication
methods), so that there is an adequate opportunity for anyone to object.

Comments?

Thanks,
--David (ips WG chair)
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
black_david@emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

________________________________

                 From: Julian Satran [mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com] 
                 Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 4:04 AM
                 To: Lars Eggert
                 Cc: ips@ietf.org
                 Subject: Re: [Ips] AD review of
draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodearch-key-02

                 Lars, 

                 Yes we wanted new keys to be publicly documented without
requiring authors to go to a strict review (that might be hard to get in
several years). 
                 In retrospect we should have said "at least 
informational"
although there is (at least in theory) an ordering between RFC
"classes". 

                 Julo 

                 Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@netlab.nec.de> 

                 16/10/06 03:40 

                                 To
                                 ips@ietf.org 
                                 cc

                                 Subject
                                 Re: [Ips] AD review of
draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodearch-key-02

                 On Oct 16, 2006, at 10:28, Lars Eggert wrote:
                 >   Finally - why is this going for Informational and not 
PS? PS
seems
                 >   appropriate.

                 To be precise, I saw David's note on this from the 
document
writeup 
                 ("This document is being published as Informational 
because RFC
3720 
                 indicates that this class of key specification should be
published as 
                 informational.")

                 It's unfortunate that 3720 doesn't also allow publication 
at 
                 Standards Track; I wonder what the rationale for this 
was. 
                 Intuitively, this should be OK, because Standards Track
publication 
                 has a higher bar.

                 If the WG decides to go for Informational because of 
3720, I'm
OK 
                 with it. It may make sense to add a short note to the
introduction 
                 explaining this.

                 Lars
                 -- 
                 Lars Eggert                                     NEC 
Network
Laboratories

                 _______________________________________________
                 Ips mailing list
                 Ips@ietf.org
                 https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips