Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-nottingham-rfc5785bis-08

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

> On 16 Feb 2019, at 1:59 am, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> > What would be helpful here would be some text in the document that asks IANA to add the instructions to the registry.  I'm hoping that more clearly states my question/request.  
> 
> Based on previous interactions with them, my understanding is that they do *not* want this level of specificity in the defining documents. Also, your text priorities the mailing list as the submission mechanism, when the preferred mechanism is likely to be an issue queue (as we've done for 8288).
> 
> What I think Kathleen is asking isn’t to have the document specify the registration details, but to make sure the registry header does.  The document says to use the instructions in the registry, but there are no instructions in the registry.  Either the document has to bootstrap that by giving an initial set of instruction to put there, or the registry has to have registration instructions that we can sanity-check now.  It doesn’t.
> 
> If the document says to see the registry for registration instructions, there had better be instructions there, no?

Yes, but if we put the instructions in the RFC, people are likely to follow them -- even when they have been changed down the line. Also, it creates confusion as to whether it's necessary to update the RFC if they change.

The text we're discussing is sourced from RC8288:
  https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8288#section-4.2
... which didn't have any such discussion around it. If we're going to continue this, I'd like to hear from IANA itself about what level of instruction it'd like. As I've said, the last time around (8288), I got feedback from them that such a level of detail in the RFC was counterproductive, and that we could trust folks -- and our process -- to do the right thing.

Regards,


--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/