Re: [saag] SSH & Ntruprime

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

On 3/25/2024 12:25 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 9:22 AM Michael StJohns 
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     Trimmed.
>
>     On 3/25/2024 12:06 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>
>>
>>     On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 8:28 AM Orie Steele
>>     <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>         > Internet-Drafts (often referred to simply as "drafts") have
>>         no formal status, and are subject to change or removal at any
>>         time; therefore they should not be cited or quoted in any
>>         formal document.
>>         we are the ones hosting their drafts.
>>
>>
>>     Yeah, this seems pretty speculative.
>>
>>     Fortunately, we have a natural experiment here, because RFC 8446
>>     explicitly allows the registration of TLS code points based on
>>     I-Ds, so in five years I guess we can see how that worked.
>>
>>     -Ekr
>>
>     Hi -
>
>     I just took a look at RFC8446 and I can't find support for that
>     claim.
>
> My mistake, it's 8447. Muscle memory took over there.
>
> See https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8447#section-7
>
> -Ekr
>
I see it.  Thanks.

Orie - 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/uuUJ6BiYGa0k-vtEltrXu482gSM/ 
has a discussion of the ephemerality of IDs from 2022 and might be 
applicable here.  This came up in the context of a document that had 33 
versions over 20 years.  And which was *finally* headed for 
Informational RFC status.  AIRC, the discussion was about how keeping 
the IDs around was good for IPR and for RFCDIFF, not as a stable 
reference for a specification.

While 8447 says what EKR says it says, I'm not sure this was done 
according to the general rules.

I'm not seeing a discussion of this added note in the voting history for 
RFC8447.  And I don't recall a general discussion of this on the IETF 
mailing list anytime in the last 10 years.  Of course, I'm old and my 
memory is fading :-).

Anyone have a reference to when the IANA started using that particular 
note and what the approval process was for it?  Is anyone aware of any 
other documents with this note?

Here's the note.

>     Note:  The role of the designated expert is described inRFC 8447  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8447>.
>        The designated expert [RFC8126  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8126>] ensures that the specification is
>        publicly available._*It is sufficient to have an Internet-Draft (that is posted and never 
> published as an RFC)*_  or a document from
>        another standards body, industry consortium, university site, etc.
>        The expert may provide more in-depth reviews, but their approval
>        should not be taken as an endorsement of the extension.

Thanks - Mike



>
>     The IANA considerations section refers to RFC8126 and only
>     "Specification Required" or "Standards Action" as the path to
>     registration.   Searching for "ID", "I-D", "internet draft" and
>     "Internet-Draft" doesn't get me anything.
>
>     AFAIK, "Specification Required" as defined in 8126 does not
>     include Internet Drafts, even under the heading of "informal
>     documentation" .  Maybe time to ask the IANA?
>
>     Later, Mike
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     saag mailing list
>     [e-mail]
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag
>