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

Barry Leiba <> Mon, 18 February 2019 02:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D16512DD85; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 18:35:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.881
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.881 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.018, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qia7W5ECxQpo; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 18:35:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42A711295EC; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 18:35:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id m137so7960871ita.0; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 18:35:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5HqE8A1OCApYcSNaeoqfRusUAXY5F+9z044nRYkqadc=; b=JNCNnw2hjVfuYcT8vWCvhb/UGVS8hJCf04XW79lneBq1lb6ybkBLbDSrn2A679OvAa tk7KmtNKva1dYxFEol5kpFy2J/VnjArgk4Va9Zj531XLERKmFYBA/AAeNd68CJfSRdrA zqFoh0b0+hrIvgTujJ7RuR16FTJCPW3AjhYq7eIlz7kH5XWnl08nkU5poWcyBMcbWy5t ODdUZDsvbnpQIevdeP5G+up91fTnuK4qJRVMswMlvGmm0fWkQTXXNNplIlBEmItlO4nL 02lS5bAD7mcaNQWXma1/RkLVCbnWDE1sY+a1TFxUaVDCiNISfdWKdW172bx6VmTZ1Ohk 7Lmw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuaMiETw3+zJzASroSjXEiyyWRzg2jbjUfLjzcO27HlsRszfKPyf bFlYdkQ4oa09Bv9Lc0QTBgN4CEGEcedlazwl6Oc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IasvJEmZ0sNuxa+cWwEteZ32N+/aO/h1mY5i6E1fzrGIHBC3IzxqA+45aB1Zx9fOVyY5JqeH/VHE8sb3LIn3qQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:dd0a:: with SMTP id t10mr10544335itf.122.1550457351104; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 18:35:51 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Barry Leiba <>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 21:35:39 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Mark Nottingham <>
Cc: IETF <>, IETF SecDir <>, Kathleen Moriarty <>,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-nottingham-rfc5785bis-08
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 02:35:55 -0000

> > 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:
> ... 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.

I agree with all that, but that still misses the point:
When someone reads in the RFC that they should follow the instructions
in the registry, and they go look at the registry and see nothing,
what are they to do?