Re: [saag] SSH & Ntruprime

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126#section-4.6

Makes it clear, the expert could decide to accept anything they are
directed to accept.

In absence of guidance NOT to accept IDs, I would assert its at the
discretion of the expert, and can readily cite examples in the wild, where
specification required was satisfied with IDs, for example:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/hpke/hpke.xhtml
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-westerbaan-cfrg-hpke-xyber768d00/02/

If the draft above is ever updated to use a "generic kem combiner" the code
point for the -02 will need to be abandoned and a new one will need to be
assigned.

Of course the same thing could happen if the reference were a github readme
at a specific commit.

Probably no need to ask IANA, see this recent reply:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/kitten/nKpKSY9Lo9gL2rTju1xDqGFwbCo/

All this aside, it's still my opinion that it's not a good thing to
encourage DE's to accept IDs, and if given the choice of specification
required and a link to a github repo (which can be deleted at any time),
and specification required with a link to an ID (which can be deleted at
any time)... I still prefer the external link, because it does not create
quality confusion regarding IETF documents... But I'll concede my objection
is more based on optics than deviation from process.

OS

On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 9:26 AM Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 9:22 AM Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Trimmed.
>>
>> On 3/25/2024 12:06 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 8:28 AM Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries>
>> <orie@transmute.industries> 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
>
>
> 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
>> saag@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag
>>
> _______________________________________________
> saag mailing list
> saag@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag
>

-- 

ORIE STEELE
Chief Technology Officer
www.transmute.industries

<https://transmute.industries>