Re: [Isms] Last Call: rfc5953 (Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)) to Draft Standard

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

On 5/2/11 5:06 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 04:54:23PM +0200, Sean Turner wrote:
>> On 5/1/11 12:41 AM, SM wrote:
>>> At 14:14 19-04-2011, The IESG wrote:
>>>> The IESG has received a request from the isms WG (isms) to consider the
>>>> following document:
>>>>
>>>> - 'Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network
>>>> Management Protocol (SNMP) '
>>>> RFC 5953 as a Draft Standard
>>>>
>>>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>>>> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>>>> [e-mail] mailing lists by 2011-05-03. Exceptionally,
>>>> comments may be sent to [e-mail] instead. In either case, please
>>>> retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>>>>
>>>> This specification contains eight normative references to standards
>>>> track documents of lower maturity: RFCs 1033, 3490, 3584, 4347, 4366,
>>>> 5246, 5280, and 5952.
>>>
>>> In Section 7:
>>>
>>> "A hostname is always in US-ASCII (as per [RFC1033]);
>>> internationalized hostnames are encoded in US-ASCII as domain
>>> names after transformation via the ToASCII operation specified
>>> in [RFC3490]."
>>>
>>> As a quick comment, RFC 1033 is a down-ref. A better reference is RFC
>>> 1123. As it is part of STD 3, a down-ref is no longer needed. The
>>> reference to RFC 3490 could be updated to RFC 5890. That also avoids a
>>> down-ref in a Draft Standard to a document that has an Obsolete status.
>>
>> As SM noted, the reference to RFC 3490 needs to be updated.  In
>> fact, I know the Apps ADs will place a DISCUSS on this particular
>> point based on some exchanges about a DKIM draft on a similar topic.
>> The change is slightly more complicated than replacing the
>> references because ToASCII went bye-bye in RFC 5890.  After some
>> exchanges with an Apps AD, the following change would "work" (this
>> very similar to the changes proposed by DKIM to their draft) - and
>> "work" means won't force a recycle at DS:
>>
>> OLD:
>>
>>    A hostname is always in US-ASCII (as per [RFC1033]);
>>    internationalized hostnames are encoded in US-ASCII as domain
>>    names after transformation via the ToASCII operation specified
>>    in [RFC3490].  The ToASCII operation MUST be performed with the
>>    UseSTD3ASCIIRules flag set.  The hostname is followed by a
>>    colon ':' (US-ASCII character 0x3A) and a decimal port number
>>    in US-ASCII.  The name SHOULD be fully qualified whenever
>>    possible.
>>
>> NEW:
>>
>>    A hostname is always in US-ASCII (as per [RFC1033]);
>>    internationalized hostnames are encoded as A-labels as specified
>>    in [RFC5890].  The hostname is followed by a
>>    colon ':' (US-ASCII character 0x3A) and a decimal port number
>>    in US-ASCII.  The name SHOULD be fully qualified whenever
>>    possible.
>
> So you kept [RFC1033] instead of the suggested [RFC1123] by intention
> or was this an accident?

I was going to take it as two different suggested changes.  If we accept 
replacing 1033 with 1123, then the text above would include 1123.  And, 
I the exact words I sent to the Apps AD was above (but I bet they 
wouldn't object to the r/1033/1123 change).

>> FYI I also asked about setting the UseSTD3ASCIIRules flag and Pete
>> said it was completely unnecessary as far as he could tell.  That's
>> why I just dropped it.
>>
>> Does anybody object to this change?  (It's perfectly okay to object
>> to these words.  We'll just need to work some other text out with
>> Pete/Peter).
>>
>> What do others feel about the reference change from RFC 1033 to
>> 1123. Are there any technical reasons to not make this change?
>>
>> As a result of the change for the 3490 reference (and maybe 1033
>> references), either a new draft is needed or I need to enter an RFC
>> editor note.*  I'm willing to enter these changes as RFC editor
>> notes.  Just let me know which path you'd like to follow.
>>
>> spt
>>
>> *  The new draft or RFC editor note will need to include the
>> editorial errata filed against RFC 5953.
>
> So you are saying we have to republish RFC 5953 in order to make this
> change in order to advance?

Hmm what I'm saying is that when this document is published it won't be 
RFC 5953 it'll be RFC XXXX but it will be at PS.  RFC XXXX will include 
the changes and the errata.  There are two ways to tell the RFC editor 
how to do this: a) via an ID or b) via an RFC editor note.  I believe b 
will be quicker and it's definitely the option I'd prefer.

spt