IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rfcplusplus] labeling/experiments/ and ramifications

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Thu, 05 July 2018 04:56 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 60D16130DD0 for <rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 21:56:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 kB4XEEmpjscG for <rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 21:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb0-x241.google.com (mail-yb0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::241]) (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 12E661277CC for <rfcplusplus@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 21:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb0-x241.google.com with SMTP id x10-v6so2744757ybl.10 for <rfcplusplus@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Jul 2018 21:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=x36k6lgn1Q1UpixNBIaStd0t3zNBcxSbF25Aoz4xe+o=; b=Bcxs4mOpw/O45c/uGl5s2pBlmgCu4ZvzhwdDtAKK7XUpVF2hmd1rUUuMkB29xRwCio xQlNb2wy2D8OweEdHmpTmX5cyfFCuGrcW6qc8ZfWkOz70pWxtwximuN9yRFK3lpjz2fT uh21K2W8nvKphQSBttZMDiWLPJUebiQMmxzlqg7P+F8GxJdKauY6GIlM7wH2sf2p4TdJ 4eUEIZkAQLcx24DjvaeNuRrwZV3wrpWYBiT/w0VrtS6z7EqNtTlObhc1KHhfyG0sqPw8 TRWiwPEh+NWtN3e7d6PDD3yzW1yotolS0LitDo14HnnaGdQrLhgoh08yhtrsXJOsu0no 4BuQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=x36k6lgn1Q1UpixNBIaStd0t3zNBcxSbF25Aoz4xe+o=; b=UjzdBBSkN8npAkubK9f2bej/wvM5EMHSwBZRfCv4UwLrgylTv2fYuykqE/Z8cqYE7p f9IBVWyO0+Kyma/myXAHYYrq/wZ6Xq0S1RakZ4huAjX5H4PgL1iUI0UYO6wFFaVlg+EP wCY8yHoUhmQa9HXnz+fqqMJTOvp3/TDjQYPlxMJRPbjReFXYQPr5+nEAngsqEcIKBZ/+ wRfG7lZWGGH6immZRWUlTS70GUJis9guFay8L51QL8eQL34ZHrpknRkv7pat0NxfEM6W A90sxf7Bf5U/f/2gPscRa+OhTWex5BJqqmDnTAEpIijpXc43S9tQ/jkoSBmqzUc2CHhA NHxw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E1WZC+1MMFPy+L4LJ1WsK0PFC3ghYjedrSBRxXACzFXoWiYj/ZL sPTWyRTyJ08xF5k1yMCi2YeU3QBf2CqNCDCvFy8Msg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpeEcms6y8yiA+jO5di4wH5UppUfp5WORKyWpQl5cLN9R3j42CnkfOTHXpfu1SyQqYw3G/iJuOc+MKrjCHtZe34=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:acd0:: with SMTP id x16-v6mr2445413ybd.407.1530766598267; Wed, 04 Jul 2018 21:56:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a81:6b83:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 21:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <db72ef5d-ad3b-aaba-22f7-0a3697393b77@gmail.com>
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> <db72ef5d-ad3b-aaba-22f7-0a3697393b77@gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2018 21:55:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBMAF2yB02E1ti2pQw2mo6ydoT09=Adu+Ej6D30YcDi+Dw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: rfcplusplus@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005304da0570395f53"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfcplusplus/lWwGZDyK9A6LDu3KZi4wUTqP_sM>
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 04:56:41 -0000

FWIW, I wouldn't have objected to Expert Review here. I just didn't object
to Spec Required :)

-Ekr


On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 9:54 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rfcplusplus mailing list
> Rfcplusplus@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfcplusplus
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email