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

Barry Leiba <> Fri, 15 February 2019 14:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5F58130EB3; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 06:59:53 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9594e4gm0mSb; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 06:59:51 -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 AF5DA12D84D; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 06:59:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id f10so1174235ita.4; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 06:59:51 -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=psre8j4LLC67/sRvO2nFTITDHxUfQeD3oewda2tCaKA=; b=EBGzf4MnBhCt8txfPLQ2pKbmgCEYNjqzKMFN1psjV7Y5HHu1fl26lPwQvTpYjoqrD2 QQsB86ohJ1kHh1JoFn9W0cAQIsov+SjdoFmMvnypV3G5PsKGsaUDJNRPklxSv7azpeNl Xl8OhhRptrxYn0YdMvbQEVFfAOKtwYoJnqqi8D4inqBrflRro7R2dj18Ib+wc4fif9BZ G1mP6A6rQ9chU63rJsGoTBAtsMUwKufXTzHNeWdVG2xoPIpA9LAbqtMoz7dkpGGfP3cI FmXhBuy43XTv72mJhYDHuDZpY8vWUyAgwKTRYFRDzrahw6Q9o+FP8P8Q8H820fs3mYWK 3CFQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuZh6hBI5RBKbMdggOTdrReYj6gzWu2S9TRH1iSS0vUiODRjMyJw dQjsLPR02zPvxuyUxIDAfq+zb+hCr7PFGuDOK60=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IZi/He4uZDHuU8bzzSipYfEUNdMgLjeHwo2K+6qOscKfNQ9loMBNEYXT/EoSg0/bVgwAsnsyKRx+ADUgVaYRpM=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:dd8d:: with SMTP id t135mr4767617itf.84.1550242790514; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 06:59:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Barry Leiba <>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 09:59:38 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Mark Nottingham <>
Cc: IETF <>, IETF SecDir <>, Kathleen Moriarty <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d824560581f00686"
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: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 14:59:54 -0000

> > 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?