[saag] Re: New Version Notification for draft-rsalz-crypto-registries-00.txt

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi Peter,

On 29.11.2024 09:38, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> I think that definitely needs to be publicised more, or perhaps people
> encouraged to use it more rather than creating de facto standards.  The last
> part of my comment was a subtle dig at someone elsewhere in the thread who
> said that we can't allow publication of stuff like the OpenSSH extensions
> because it implies endorsement by the IETF.

Ok, but let's be careful about digs.  It's hard enough to get a job done 
here, right?

> The point I was trying to make
> was that they're called Request for Comments for a reason, so when it's
> clearly marked as "Informational" hopefully no-one will mistake that as an
> IETF-endorsed standard of any kind.

Righto.

> One question about the independent-submissions track, pretty much everything
> you can do in the IETF is already the domain of some standards group or other,
> so if someone submitted an independent submission would it end up being
> blocked with the justification being that it's an attempt to bypass the
> standards group?

That can and should happen if the work more properly belongs in the 
IETF, and the independent submission process encourages work to go to 
the right place.  It's particularly important that informational 
documents not be misrepresented as standards. However, see below.

> For example if GPG published their private extensions to
> OpenPGP (to avoid picking on OpenSSH for a change :-) would it end up being
> blocked because it's not being done via the OpenPGP WG?

It would certainly get discussed.  But extensions get published as 
independent submissions from time to time.  In fact, in some cases, they 
are encouraged.  See the charter of mailmaint, for instance. 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mailmaint/about/

Eliot