IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rfcplusplus] labeling/experiments/ and ramifications

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 05 July 2018 04:54 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ADE9130E3A for <rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 21:54:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cmJP1xYe2z9g for <rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 21:54:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x244.google.com (mail-pf0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49A2F1277CC for <rfcplusplus@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 21:54:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x244.google.com with SMTP id j3-v6so4282376pfh.11 for <rfcplusplus@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Jul 2018 21:54:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=E416lNDw3Qclw4cP74NmMMeF0yDNgI7ElkgcXcYyMdE=; b=kditUOWXuMLg9zqvkRn5/ZfiQYs6wNtEXmXWaERj7w6YuRnGkiC7JKNR4uxEyrfGLF gihq1/zu7Pbaot2RduT5bqZsXwb8Ja9ZUi80hzLc132qLooxwcMaBw6UDhTsbuMfRC6c PfJnrTuUImafxED25SzcE33mInAh4k6uCnwAlh5OlqwTdoyekNtYWzckczrDompM0N76 /3GJzT5l7b40qpGrAb0hqSAWPWbT8ux3C92y3LwLO4SpviHe9sjFNukzS3qAj5lkW+wL QdPJKUPui8nR4frabmcZ0O4vSILzuthALdh+gfxj4WzukTGIZ4huNuLFRcZ7AtpTAvRq g7vg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=E416lNDw3Qclw4cP74NmMMeF0yDNgI7ElkgcXcYyMdE=; b=Tyd05fY92hfGcHlodSj+LIoD8FrEwEARwpG7zmnJi+iAScRXsn2eIKzcO9oe8KRnMB i8kyE2XJd67B8I7HWxbItPaQ08bx2njVLeKscaDoBUGmGyCs595vLgCWf857j06DdqEw zXYuSLPz/YYM+dA3EvQHSLwEXSDMhX4xrt7aO8pohgKrPS6Cgm3A/WEycbpvxhR5g2pz 4HMpBJZ/Tg1TzlmDvhyrh369C3Bza1wN6bzcfFb16HYpUSYET6d9zJM9a77T+TnsSel7 nfH+LhHzO5wvafQ9CtiQeJ/FL+/PVJFU7s8OcFktjsUkuTHsjLhg4fceS+KrZQ02Z6JK +E0A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E2kW5kMZJhNhKGDMJIYWkinaRH9BW1HuwFlWBWH4ezp0I7a+Ev4 kJ8KO1z22p8l0E5wiX9zh2NbsQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpcfzwuiS3eiFg9WV1CuU1nDT9XAn4SbbnjTadgHH5aa/ePFpxsqcSd8eku2wTGNC9rANv8Scg==
X-Received: by 2002:a65:44c3:: with SMTP id g3-v6mr4124800pgs.231.1530766464620; Wed, 04 Jul 2018 21:54:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.38] ([118.148.121.80]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t78-v6sm10170238pfa.160.2018.07.04.21.54.22 for <rfcplusplus@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Jul 2018 21:54:23 -0700 (PDT)
To: rfcplusplus@ietf.org
References: <f609948a-9240-3fe4-8538-e694aab1edb0@cisco.com> <CABcZeBMo3VFZWMVfGrYV_LLD0oHSQJQV20uhoO2KsV-7HWdGnw@mail.gmail.com> <be67344f-bb7f-f6c3-dff2-9c777e472b2e@cisco.com> <CABcZeBMmGb=WyvL2L5U05LeTcDPeXBxf5N-21tTwPLsP__PSNw@mail.gmail.com> <2c8871ae-f4c4-40bd-296a-f52b4adbe385@cisco.com> <20180704173703.GJ60996@kduck.kaduk.org> <03c401d413cd$89a40c00$9cec2400$@olddog.co.uk>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <db72ef5d-ad3b-aaba-22f7-0a3697393b77@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2018 16:54:27 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <03c401d413cd$89a40c00$9cec2400$@olddog.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfcplusplus/drO7vqSsEnPFyFiFEtwrv88pxDs>
Subject: Re: [Rfcplusplus] labeling/experiments/ and ramifications
X-BeenThere: rfcplusplus@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: For discussion of the RFC++ BoF proposal and related ideas <rfcplusplus.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rfcplusplus>, <mailto:rfcplusplus-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfcplusplus/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfcplusplus@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfcplusplus-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfcplusplus>, <mailto:rfcplusplus-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2018 04:54:53 -0000

Adrian,

IMHO that's for the TLS WG to decide and the IESG (and IANA) to agree to.
If the result is somewhat fewer Independent Submissions, that seems
like a win-win in the end (and somewhat irrelevant to the BOF topic).

   Brian

On 05/07/2018 07:30, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Well, I am not that bothered, but it looks like you should have used "Expert Review" with the strictures and guidance to the Designated Experts, rather than "Specification Required" with an (implicit) alteration of 8126 and the I-D boilerplate.
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rfcplusplus [mailto:rfcplusplus-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Benjamin
>> Kaduk
>> Sent: 04 July 2018 18:37
>> To: Eliot Lear
>> Cc: Eric Rescorla; rfcplusplus@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Rfcplusplus] labeling/experiments/ and ramifications
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 07:32:53PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
>>> Hi EKR,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 04.07.18 19:02, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I would note that
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates/
>>>> encodes this practice and it's currently in the RFC-Ed queue, so if
>>>> you object, you ought to do it soon.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That seems a bit late.  If ALL you're saying in that document is,
>>> “specification required”, no reason to stall that draft if it's in the
>>> RFC Editor queue.
>>
>> Currently live at
>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-extensiontype-values/tls-extensiontype-
>> values.xhtml :
>>
>> Note
>> The role of the designated expert is described in
>> [RFC-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-05]. The designated expert
>> [RFC8126] ensures that the specification is publicly available.  An
>> Internet Draft that is posted and never published or a standard in
>> another standards body, industry consortium, university site, etc.
>> suffices.  The expert may provide more in depth reviews, but their
>> approval should not be taken as an endorsement of the extension.
>>
>> -Ben
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rfcplusplus mailing list
>> Rfcplusplus@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfcplusplus
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rfcplusplus mailing list
> Rfcplusplus@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfcplusplus
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email