[saag] Re: [rfc-i] RFCs vs Standards

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Wed, 11 December 2024 00:08 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.com>
X-Original-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B804C1516F3 for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2024 16:08:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.25
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.25 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.148, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 05vbfNuw6O9X for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2024 16:08:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9001:583::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A96BBC14F682 for <saag@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2024 16:08:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050093.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050093.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 4BACjKdP002178; Wed, 11 Dec 2024 00:07:58 GMT
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=cc :content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to; s=jan2016.eng; bh=TSx/0GIiJT7ZVeWS7VzfpL oV2DWspX6xAHPhqj+1g9k=; b=ezRsw9cIEa1uufL9eHakq41M7H5vkMzusOpQAL Sq8Ya62OdjoqzedunZib+qDNTBQPQC0vTWfO8YVBwp/KHXd8JQPmdw3DnJ2UAJ+h McFkM7/Cb+ujDPARXMgwyvpnK9bZkkPm05NChD+V8PfN2SzzyNb2Y0h6aHJ9bj0J VmPwcTym4ow8vX8nf2foeHh8vxIbwRo2JqEUZXo/tBJsnsMFTqIFxfxDbsB0QqWK g2wX3uSqR3xXN5D00jnFp40uhXaGKSsP2eC8zDF9KMpHGYKfT8mf4EDH1dUhRsOQ 1BI/OOaHrNrEjcWc729Bn+32/Bx2OyIdtjhKfkDZEnAEMoQw==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint2 (prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com [184.51.33.19] (may be forged)) by m0050093.ppops.net-00190b01. (PPS) with ESMTPS id 43cegxrn65-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 11 Dec 2024 00:07:57 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 4BANFAff022917; Tue, 10 Dec 2024 19:07:56 -0500
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.50.206]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 43cjk139jb-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 10 Dec 2024 19:07:56 -0500
Received: from ustx2ex-dag4mb4.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.50.203) by ustx2ex-dag4mb7.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.50.206) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Tue, 10 Dec 2024 16:07:55 -0800
Received: from ustx2ex-dag4mb4.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.50.203]) by ustx2ex-dag4mb4.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.50.203]) with mapi id 15.02.1544.011; Tue, 10 Dec 2024 16:07:55 -0800
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: "StJohns, Michael" <msj@nthpermutation.com>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Thread-Topic: [saag] Re: [rfc-i] RFCs vs Standards
Thread-Index: AQHbS0Sc3T2z4elnTEO/DZDm1NMdbbLgVbuAgABUOICAAARegP//ruMA
Message-ID: <C8E83CC3-DA59-4F7D-85F4-E5039E534737@akamai.com>
References: <BE95E617-C929-43BA-BB40-41E189A8158B@akamai.com> <SY8P300MB0711C796AB6095C788556516EE292@SY8P300MB0711.AUSP300.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <15450.1732763286@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <3029EB03-6E7A-47CB-9682-F511CB51EE17@akamai.com> <10065.1732826193@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <CACsn0cmWVeFdJ3dzMj5SV4XpJF4rssULtfQ1moeefoq-Evhk=g@mail.gmail.com> <CAGL5yWb=tLvMOYFKT3ffVbcy7BAD=i4B0VHEUdkvwRvZ3X3Bsw@mail.gmail.com> <m2mshh4v8l.wl-randy@psg.com> <CABcZeBMjxNbBMYU2p3_a8-5VCExgmY-7XLof7die05YOEX-38A@mail.gmail.com> <70419651-6443-4393-9ca1-8a1c98a68db0@cs.tcd.ie> <CABcZeBNtBRxi5zSf9OvUip2AtyVD6Wt9+kQESuUzo-=Kur9+ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <fac981d9-2fe9-4a84-8af1-845acd72af58@cs.tcd.ie> <14124.1733073164@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <d52ee080-814b-46fd-9e0f-41349941eeac@cs.tcd.ie> <GVXPR07MB9678DF2C14EA44B28C3DA372893D2@GVXPR07MB9678.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <F304B6BA-6969-4C62-A217-88E76F82CDC2@tzi.org> <C74E3E9D-E892-48B4-87BE-CD634081AA23@akamai.com> <030FD3D1-8BC9-4C92-84EE-9CD18F451E73@tzi.org> <5249aa71-52c2-4f20-b2ae-62eaf75c82b7@lear.ch> <F54D57D6-F1DF-43A5-A437-7CD2AA4B181A@akamai.com> <CAHBU6isP3cyMHdZ0u3DOS3F+WXuJzXm9fpzJrBZKgpiojb1r7Q@mail.gmail.com> <CANeU+ZA_YvPLmOBRf1mgYMsv5guEeR8L-YmrAeMp0oQq6Pz7Ww@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANeU+ZA_YvPLmOBRf1mgYMsv5guEeR8L-YmrAeMp0oQq6Pz7Ww@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.91.24111613
x-originating-ip: [172.27.164.43]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C8E83CC3DA594F7D85F4E5039E534737akamaicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1057,Hydra:6.0.680,FMLib:17.12.68.34 definitions=2024-12-10_13,2024-12-10_01,2024-11-22_01
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=366 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2411120000 definitions=main-2412100173
X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: UYVuuv36JJ3BXhGaHOERlMPVLGPTzYte
X-Proofpoint-GUID: UYVuuv36JJ3BXhGaHOERlMPVLGPTzYte
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1039,Hydra:6.0.680,FMLib:17.12.60.29 definitions=2024-09-06_09,2024-09-06_01,2024-09-02_01
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=1 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxlogscore=183 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=1 spamscore=1 suspectscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 clxscore=1011 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.19.0-2411120000 definitions=main-2412100174
X-MailFrom: rsalz@akamai.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Hits: implicit-dest
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-saag.ietf.org-0; header-match-saag.ietf.org-1; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
Message-ID-Hash: VDUSO25PLI7PSBKFKPD3ARN6V6MO6B2R
X-Message-ID-Hash: VDUSO25PLI7PSBKFKPD3ARN6V6MO6B2R
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 14:31:54 -0800
CC: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, IETF SAAG <saag@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [saag] Re: [rfc-i] RFCs vs Standards
List-Id: Security Area Advisory Group <saag.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/WKOT9UDNX0o60oW-Q4zZ_YuAC90>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/saag>
List-Help: <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:saag-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:saag@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:saag-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:saag-leave@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 00:08:07 -0000
X-Original-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 00:07:55 +0000

I hate that maneuver.
Why?

Instead, let’s just use the text of the ID at the time of request with a change in the boiler plate specific to the IANA specification required model.
That seems much more complicated.  “Use the ID, except modified.” Does the Trust need to get involved, or are authors required to grant rights to IANA? What document format, the XML presumably?

  Have the IANA - as it already seems to do - act as a document repository for the stable reference associated with the code point.  To be clear, the document in the IANA repo is not an ID even if it shares text with one.

Given the known problems we have already seen about general confusing among RFC streams and I-D’s, this seems naïve.  Some wants to see, for example, what the TLS hybrid key exchange Kyber is and they have to follow a link to a document that looks almost exactly like an I-D, except that maybe one or two boilerplate sentences are different?

That makes it clear exactly what the code point applies to, without begging the question of whether an ID is a citeable stable document.

I disagree.  It further muddies the waters a great deal.