[openpgp] rfc4880bis and draft-openpgp-iana-registry-updates-01

[Werner Koch <[e-mail]>]

Hi!

The recently expired draft-openpgp-iana-registry-updates-01 specifies
one of the goals of the WG to make the assignment of new identifier etc
easier.  I am not sure whether this drafts can be integrated into
RFC-4880bis but the IANA Considerations section in RFC-4880bis needs
anyway a rework because the demanded registries are existent and only
need to list new items. 

I am not sure how to do this.  For example RFC-4880 reads

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
  10.1.  New String-to-Key Specifier Types

   OpenPGP S2K specifiers contain a mechanism for new algorithms to turn
   a string into a key.  This specification creates a registry of S2K
   specifier types.  The registry includes the S2K type, the name of the
   S2K, and a reference to the defining specification.  The initial
   values for this registry can be found in Section 3.7.1.  Adding a new
   S2K specifier MUST be done through the IETF CONSENSUS method, as
   described in [RFC2434].
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

What I did until now was to replace RFC REVIEW (aka IETF CONSENSUS) by
SPECIFICATION REQUIRED and to reference RFC-8126.  See the gitlab
repo. The draft-openpgp-iana-registry-updates-01 has this text

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
  5.1.  PGP String-to-Key (S2K) Registry

   Proposed changes to the registry:

   o  Rename the registry to "OpenPGP String-to-Key (S2K) Algorithms"

   o  Change registry policy to *Specification Required*.

   o  Update its "Reference" to also refer to this document.

   o  A Standards Track document is required to register an S2K
      algorithm with the value "Yes" in any recommendation.

   Add the following note:

   Note: Experts are to verify that the proposed registration
   provides a publicly-available standard that can be implemented
   in an interoperable way, with notable benefits for the wider
   OpenPGP community.

   Update the following registrations:

   +---------+--------------------+-------+-------+--------------------+
   | ID      | S2K Type           | REC-S | REC-I | Reference          |
   +---------+--------------------+-------+-------+--------------------+
   | 0       | Simple S2K         | No    | Yes   | Section 3.7.1.1 of |
   |         |                    |       |       | [RFC4880]          |
   | 1       | Salted S2K         | No    | Yes   | Section 3.7.1.2 of |
   |         |                    |       |       | [RFC4880]          |
   | 2       | Reserved           |       |       | Section 3.7.1 of   |
   |         |                    |       |       | [RFC4880]          |
   | 3       | Iterated and       | Yes   | Yes   | Section 3.7.1.3 of |
   |         | Salted S2K         |       |       | [RFC4880]          |
   | 4-99    | Unassigned         |       |       |                    |
   | 100-110 | Private or         |       |       | Section 3.7.1 of   |
   |         | Experimental Use   |       |       | [RFC4880]          |
   | 111-255 | Unassigned         |       |       |                    |
   +---------+--------------------+-------+-------+----------------
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

I doubt that it is advisable to merge this into RFC-4880bis because this
is a request for one time action of the IANA.  However a request to
change from IETF REVIEW to SPECIFICATION REQUIRED is an actual action we
like to see and that should go into a new RFCs.

Any hints on how to proceed?


Shalom-Salam,

   Werner


-- 
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.