[MMUSIC] Re: Progressing/Resolving the IESG Review of the BFCP specs

Thanks to Russ and Ted for the prompt re-review of the BFCP documents.

Russ wrote:
> This document depends on the fingerprint Attribute definition in 
> [10], which is draft-ietf-mmusic-comedia-tls-05.  The definition of 
> the fingerprint attribute includes:

    hash-func              =  "sha-1" / "sha-224" / "sha-256" /
                              "sha-384" / "sha-512" /
                              "md5" / "md2" / token
                              ; Additional hash functions can only come
                              ; from updates to RFC 3279

> RFC 3279 does not define the short strings used here.  RFC 3279 
> provides ASN.1 object identifiers, which are not suitable 
> here.  draft-ietf-mmusic-comedia-tls needs to say how these 
> identifiers will be assigned.  Will IANA maintain a registry?

Good point.  I'll note to the WG that Russ also sent this to the IESG
as a Last Call comment on the document.  

There are some instances when attribute values are registered in IANA, 
not just the att-field.  One that is comparable is the key management 
protocol identifier from draft-ietf-mmusic-kmgmt-ext.

So a suggestion is to add to the IANA Considerations a crisp new
sub-registry for the hash-func values in the fingerprint attribute.
Its rules for registration can be that new identifiers are 
permitted only for hash functions found in RFC 3279 or updates
of RFC 3279.

Does the editor want to propose some IANA Considerations text?

Allison (wearing the hat of an AD shepherd for comedia-tls)

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