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

["Salz, Rich" <[e-mail]>]

> Hi Rich. Generally I disagree with the fundamental recommendation:

No problem.  I threw a draft together, and if it goes anywhere it will certainly go through a consensus process.

>What problem are you trying to solve with this document?
>Could we start with a problem statement?

It was discussed during SAAG.  See the tail end of the chat at https://zulip.ietf.org/#narrow/stream/337-saag

> To me, it seems like an attempt to generalize a policy that risk
i> ncreasing the downward angle of the slipper slope towards rejecting all
>crypto that isn't controlled by NIST.

This greatly concerns me.  Can you tell why you think it encourages that?  Because I am strongly opposed to that.

> I don't think I-D's are appropriate to use as reference material in the
>Specification Required context. The current IETF I-D boilerplate says:

Yes, that's a matter of controversy, see above comment on consensus.

>> DE Instructions
>> Unless the WG chairs indicate otherwise via email, the Designated
>> Experts should decline code point registrations for documents which
>> have already been adopted or are being proposed for adoption by IETF
>> working groups or IRTF research groups.

> I suggest changing 'or are being proposed for adoption into 'or are
> being proposed by the document authors for adoption into' to avoid
> external people fillibustering the registration process of a document by
> proposing it for adoption by some random WG's. Proposing other's work
> as WG documents is a pattern that have been followed for several
>protocols that people dislike and seamingly wish to delay.

Very good suggestion. Recorded at https://github.com/richsalz/draft-rsalz-crypto-registries/issues/1