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

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 18 February 2019 02:37 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46B7512DD85; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 18:37:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mnot.net header.b=ELRl1Ow0; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=Rx4r17Pd
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GIg-pJTy0YpT; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 18:37:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C117D1295EC; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 18:37:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69A3A2F54; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 21:37:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 17 Feb 2019 21:37:32 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm2; bh=w 4rSkpLVJcedddPfth0Uy7XtNa6ols7ScCx4otBwAbQ=; b=ELRl1Ow0GxRxIRd9I aEG4VWxl2vK3mChN+Bz48pLmyaVE6AJozIMc0jEZe5TzBZamjV3h6HhRTOW/BeQO YBAbJZGjv7wDF7HtENe//rRU6VhoWnnEo7Tab0MLhfnFHcPd9rzsFRswUuFHo8LV 7n1AbdbANXpaYJMnGgQvT1ziTX3s6Of5fLZcqOBLarHXtkmLAqW8DOZrS6R9D6d+ u9aYiYzHrbT82wKVrct6ZwonrnCUWw5LFEgEdiFdQw4P8E8GVuNY2bV5tDsnE6UG 8FrBFPL0ROrZyCRWx6dyICb+dOkzUNR1KIEaONlgId3FCkjniS9nCocDCrDnAUsH SQtfA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=w4rSkpLVJcedddPfth0Uy7XtNa6ols7ScCx4otBwA bQ=; b=Rx4r17PdS1ZF1vvWzyQoPwMRT9uhSpzNL5N1gmgyFzbTuuyP8kcfVqDX7 1h23EICmQqxUguIQQx3tE3JqsLjK+bX8YdV9DmkJirSIgYqQ2gyR1Efw2QtyETnA ngDbIM9kCe/4gPBpwIKhuBn1KkSBWUJxXfnkyw4P3IcQnU87Fe4DRCuT3hR6EN/j sjIRytzTiTrEvRBifdjkdkNRVatLCz+07DXO0DC5ShPtlZNgzcIZKNj708UaOCI2 Er943NICBh3Awo9wJpB++xAIHPOvFWWOq1s3ZpkhcXqN+HV9MXD7hzywqFy7RfCW d6M5RjLru1vZ/e9LcCiCilGGPbJSA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:axpqXIf0yqihfYivTkWC3bbPYWp291_U7aST0HBA6i2JQ3rdqw5W1g>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedtledrudduvddghedvucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfquhhtnecuuegrihhlohhuthemucef tddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpegtggfuhfgjff fgkfhfvffosehtqhhmtdhhtddvnecuhfhrohhmpeforghrkhcupfhothhtihhnghhhrghm uceomhhnohhtsehmnhhothdrnhgvtheqnecuffhomhgrihhnpehivghtfhdrohhrghdpmh hnohhtrdhnvghtnecukfhppedugeegrddufeeirddujeehrddvkeenucfrrghrrghmpehm rghilhhfrhhomhepmhhnohhtsehmnhhothdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpe dt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:axpqXEKtxlUE3lsD_2_BvQG9gdS1ks5pH6wgGynz8rYokRadRsgBnw> <xmx:axpqXLYa-BF2QLH2_pFdX3rENfckc01rPtzUWUGYW8u5a-liGQkyEg> <xmx:axpqXJZictgwdBLrBOk2v9_oVjHhpOsOps3DTGwHalha8HkXxmc4Yw> <xmx:bBpqXBH2NGwD7o6-PsOf5WNTX1Nrq4LK7ihpDPgseOIwc8nFgmHU_A>
Received: from attitudadjuster.mnot.net (unknown [144.136.175.28]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 0006510314; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 21:37:28 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJJD-thi6Omg--Kq_26mdSXpj2=r7WR32H=7Ekx_UgRhrw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 13:37:24 +1100
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, IETF SecDir <secdir@ietf.org>, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, draft-nottingham-rfc5785bis.all@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <79B2F684-4CD4-4715-AED0-5D5A6E1DC612@mnot.net>
References: <154886569351.10484.4703007670359734409@ietfa.amsl.com> <B1723A6E-2CA3-40D4-8C61-2BF41C3C3FB2@mnot.net> <CAHbuEH5ucn6E9iyOi9TaJRNxE+n7V7=qYT3LTtYqvXrq4BvSfQ@mail.gmail.com> <1317558B-24DD-4CB7-BBB6-95E5946EF87A@mnot.net> <CALaySJK7y+v2XSFg5xh0=uk03J-wjPsWpTMRFMTYZcxY59+5Fw@mail.gmail.com> <AE45E283-0DC6-45BD-B4B5-3AA17A057896@mnot.net> <CALaySJJD-thi6Omg--Kq_26mdSXpj2=r7WR32H=7Ekx_UgRhrw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/MytFXu-2Fa9OVbzH_uclVw0mCcg>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-nottingham-rfc5785bis-08
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdir/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 02:37:36 -0000


> On 18 Feb 2019, at 1:35 pm, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> 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?

Because, by the time this becomes an RFC, I (the expert of the registry, IESG still willing), will work with IANA to get that set up. Probably during AUTH48.




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