Re: [kitten] review of draft-ietf-kitten-krb-spake-preauth-00

[Robbie Harwood <[e-mail]>]

Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]> writes:

> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 06:49:58PM -0400, Greg Hudson wrote:
>> On 08/22/2017 06:30 PM, Robbie Harwood wrote:
>> >> I tend to agree that any mandatory-to-implement policy should be
>> >> written into this draft, and not be part of the registry.
>> > 
>> > The disadvantage of having mandatory-to-implement items defined but not
>> > in the registry is that it fragments the numbering.  For example, in our
>> > Kerberos SPAKE Groups registry, currently P-256 is required, and
>> > assigned ID Number: 1.  If we remove it from the registry, it won't have
>> > an ID Number.  (Unless we give it one a different way.)
>> 
>> I think I miscommunicated.  P-256 should be in the registry, but if we
>> want to specify that it is mandatory-to-implement, I believe we should
>> say that in the RFC outside of the IANA registry.
>
> That's my understanding as well -- the MTI items should still be in
> the registry, but the registry is not the best place to specify the
> MTI nature.  Making something MTI for a standards-track document
> "should" require standards-action, so there's not much value in having
> a field in the registry when there will have to be a new document
> for such things anyway.

Thanks for clarifying.  Language changes have been proposed.

--Robbie