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

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Dec 01, 2018 at 07:21:43AM +0000, Ronald Tse wrote:
>    Hi Ben, Derek,
> 
>      Derek is absolutely right, here.
> 
>    I fully agree that managing two documents is more complex than handling
>    one.
> 
>      I'll note that for TLS 1.3 we did separate documents, RFCs 8446 and
>      8447,
>      since there were a *lot* of registry changes and we did want a permanent
>      record of them, but that split caused a lot of extra work to ensure
>      things
>      were synchronized during AUTH48.
> 
>    However, the OpenPGP IANA update document was created from a suggestion by
>    the Security AD, where the TLS registry update model was the acceptable
>    role model to follow. RFC 8447 is at 17 pages; this document is close to
>    30 - the OpenPGP IANA registries are numerous and changes to them many,
>    since a lot of them have been dilapidated since the days of 2440.
>    If we merge this into 4880bis and remove them at publication, we're adding
>    30 pages (temporarily) and then maybe removing 25 at publication. And we
>    lose the permanent record that RFC 8447 provides for TLS. Perhaps there is
>    an argument that the registries of OpenPGP aren't as important (!) as
>    TLS's for permanent record keeping, and therefore should be relegated to
>    an Internet-Draft, but it doesn't sound like a good reason to forgo that.
>    Given that the IETF process has already processed the pair of 8446/8447
>    successfully in a synchronized way, would it be possible that it's even
>    easier this time round?

Most of the pain of 8447 was on the WG chairs and AD to manually do
consistency checks.  I don't expect much of an efficiency gain from
practice, but I suppose there are probably ways to distribute the work that
we did not explore very well for 8447.

-Ben