Re: [secdir] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-11

Barry Leiba <> Sun, 13 October 2019 14:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7009F120033; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 07:25:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.477
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.477 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.172, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3S6tWOHoTkIx; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 07:25:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C77312000F; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 07:25:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id b136so31762999iof.3; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 07:25:46 -0700 (PDT)
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=i2KXgDxEAXyAhNmdgSTYjJoNW74aEcFDFvGgZzJPbmI=; b=qHrqil+eLKD8znIm8ZA9G+Y6PgyWqVrkkHhgWF2wpDSyyAS71SZbOjluyJ/Nyi4PcT IDGL9hbQR3RNv2jtQMPg/sN+Af035FSHlsc9YjAiW5yW9eXuI4NbyaN0cjLLKUiHdNAR oVL1byHQ0h41C/bPkqto8v0vwSI//GImda0FVDgit/aKxUHKYVDg2evDpJSCb4JbRjdg u3ow+JCA68FCxcWUOab8BhsAycdE1KtTEYYVYoDNy6oQ/l6uHQ0WN9vFLuF8MZFzc2nN 0ytZvRH/CfQRTSnXpg+EpGgNOwREJdCLv+lM/NGyZovnzTMKjYaBK77gw1ffy3p2JcNa nZUQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV70IYesr1+boeJa4AostWuyRHQVF9z6/CrwnihCxqONIgAqtGP P411Fpf2pqz3nRAns6plmd882fv2Jwd6CLI3CvBzXA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzV/SQNsAItg/rPTXUMWTyovCTHh2OQTsnAQxXY1OpSaeIJ2IBHEpJe74plyXpFwz9fU/EuBMfPiezSro1d604=
X-Received: by 2002:a5e:d90c:: with SMTP id n12mr19414081iop.140.1570976745615; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 07:25:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Barry Leiba <>
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2019 16:25:33 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Russ Housley <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000df7a290594cb8664"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-11
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: Sun, 13 Oct 2019 14:25:48 -0000

> The Abstract ans Section 1 say: "This is a non-standard proprietary
> extension." I understand that this is not a standards track document, so
> the "non-standard" part makes sense.  However, what is the point of
> publishing a "proprietary" extension as an RFC.  I would hope that
> interoperable implementations is the goal of publication.

I’m afraid this addition is my fault.  Perhaps “proprietary” is the wrong
word here: The point is that this is documenting an extension developed by
one registry and not in use by others, with the idea that if others want to
use it they can follow this to interoperable.  It’s rather like when we
documented Apple Bonjour as Informational.

Better word?