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

Mark Nottingham <> Mon, 18 February 2019 02:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46B7512DD85; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 18:37:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=ELRl1Ow0; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=Rx4r17Pd
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GIg-pJTy0YpT; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 18:37:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C117D1295EC; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 18:37:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal []) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69A3A2F54; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 21:37:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 17 Feb 2019 21:37:32 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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=; 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 (unknown []) by (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 <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 13:37:24 +1100
Cc: IETF <>, IETF SecDir <>, Kathleen Moriarty <>,
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Barry Leiba <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
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 02:37:36 -0000

> On 18 Feb 2019, at 1:35 pm, Barry Leiba <> 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:
>> ... 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