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: <CAHbuEH5ucn6E9iyOi9TaJRNxE+n7V7=qYT3LTtYqvXrq4BvSfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 17:52:44 +1100
Cc: IETF SecDir <secdir@ietf.org>, draft-nottingham-rfc5785bis.all@ietf.org,
 IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1317558B-24DD-4CB7-BBB6-95E5946EF87A@mnot.net>
References: <154886569351.10484.4703007670359734409@ietfa.amsl.com>
 <B1723A6E-2CA3-40D4-8C61-2BF41C3C3FB2@mnot.net>
 <CAHbuEH5ucn6E9iyOi9TaJRNxE+n7V7=qYT3LTtYqvXrq4BvSfQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/pqtRPIAZ0ZIZs0_SQ3Ixad7sdPU>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-nottingham-rfc5785bis-08
Precedence: list

Cutting down to specific replies --

> On 15 Feb 2019, at 11:20 am, Kathleen Moriarty =
<kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>=20
>> > 3. Section 3.1 says:
>> > The "Well-Known URIs" registry is located at
>> >   "https://www.iana.org/assignments/well-known-uris/".  =
Registration
>> >   requests can be made by following the instructions located there =
or
>> >   by sending an email to the "wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org" =
mailing
>> >   list.
>> >=20
>> > I'm not clear on the instructions as I follow the link to the =
registry and
>> > there's a pointer to the RFC that this document will obsolete.  I'm =
assuming
>> > that the reference will be replaced with this document.  Is that =
the case or
>> > are there additional instructions than what will be included =
directly in the
>> > registry?  If they are repeated (I don't see an IANA request for =
that action),
>> > that is fine, but I think it's a little confusing to send someone =
to that link
>> > if they are already reading this document.  This document is also =
going through
>> > a review process to update that registry, so if instructions were =
maintained at
>> > the registry URL, what would be the review process to alter the =
instructions?=20
>> > I'm assuming that this sentence just should be removed, but if not, =
I'd like to
>> > understand the update process for that registry (instructions for =
registering
>> > values not adding them).  If the sentence should be changed, I =
suggest
>> > something like:
>> >=20
>> >   The "Well-Known URIs" registry is located at
>> >   "https://www.iana.org/assignments/well-known-uris/".  =
Registration
>> >   requests can be made by following the instructions in this =
document and
>> >   sending the email to the "wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org" mailing
>> >   list.
>>=20
>> After extensive consultation with IANA regarding RFC8288's revision =
of registration policy, the outcome was that this level of detail / =
instruction is unnecessary; the text at the top of a registry page can =
be tweaked by the Experts by asking IANA, and if they have concerns they =
can take it up with the IESG as necessary.
>>=20
>> Personally I was a bit surprised by this, but also relieved; getting =
this sort of thing *exactly* right in an RFC is difficult, and we need =
the flexibility to change things (e.g., we're currently using a Github =
issue queue to collect registration requests there, but that might =
change in the future).
>=20
> 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. =20

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).


>>  > 4. Question on Change controller: Is it possible to successfully =
make a request
>> > through an experimental track RFC or standards track only?  If =
experimental is
>> > allowed, can it only be provisional?
>>=20
>> The registry is Specification Required, so an experimental RFC can =
indeed make a registry. It can be 'standard' if it meets this bar: =
"Other values can also be registered as permanent, if the Experts find =
that they are in use, in consultation with the community."
>>=20
>>=20
>> I think the text that had me ask this question was the following:
>>=20
>>    Standards-defined values have a status of "permanent".  Other =
values
>>    can also be registered as permanent, if the Experts find that they
>>    are in use, in consultation with the community.  Other values =
should=20
>>=20
>>        be registered as "provisional".  =20
>=20
> By standards-defined, do you mean through specification required in =
the IETF?

The current text is:

"""
Values defined by standards-track RFCs and other open standards (in the =
sense of {{?RFC206, Section 7.1.1}}) have a status of "permanent".
"""

>> > 5. Section 3 has the following sentence:
>> >=20
>> >   General requirements for registered relation types are described =
in
>> >   Section 3.
>> >=20
>> > Did the document in a previous revision contain something in =
section 3 about
>> > registered relation types or am I missing something when reading =
section 3
>> > (which is entirely possible)?  If it were there (or maybe was in a =
previous
>> > revision), I'd expect to see it in the following paragraph, but =
could see the
>> > above text being dropped as an answer to this question as well =
(unless I am
>> > missing something):
>> >=20
>> >   It MAY also contain additional information, such as the syntax of
>> >   additional path components, query strings and/or fragment =
identifiers
>> >   to be appended to the well-known URI, or protocol-specific =
details
>> >   (e.g., HTTP [RFC7231] method handling).
>>=20
>> Section 3 puts requirements on choosing a registered name, both =
syntactically and with a more general SHOULD about how to choose a good =
name.
>=20
> OK, can you clarify in the text what you mean by registered relation =
type or have that sentence say registered name instead of relation type =
since that is the only time registered relation type appears in the =
document?  I think that would help the reader.

Sorry, that was a cut-and-paste error; I've updated to say "registered =
values."

Cheers and thanks again,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/