[Secdispatch] IANA policies "... with expert review" (Re: [Alldispatch] IETF-Wide Dispatch – Call for topics)
Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Sat, 25 May 2024 21:15 UTC
Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BA16C14F5F5; Sat, 25 May 2024 14:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mm_Y4krSk-hU; Sat, 25 May 2024 14:14:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A376DC14F5FE; Sat, 25 May 2024 14:14:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (eduroam-pool10-287.wlan.uni-bremen.de [134.102.91.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Vmvn10q25zDCbb; Sat, 25 May 2024 23:14:45 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.600.62\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <CADNypP-t3r_978s3ZgrpBmwV1g9mMrWuHqqibAKSgvEA==j8Pg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <886F613C-D942-4D07-879C-817BFC74455A@tzi.org>
References: <CADNypP-t3r_978s3ZgrpBmwV1g9mMrWuHqqibAKSgvEA==j8Pg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.s.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.600.62)
X-MailFrom: cabo@tzi.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Hits: max-recipients
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-int-area.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
Message-ID-Hash: UGWTIFBU6ST3RMWDJWLK66EPLLOKMFSU
X-Message-ID-Hash: UGWTIFBU6ST3RMWDJWLK66EPLLOKMFSU
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 26 May 2024 18:13:05 -0700
CC: Alldispatch@ietf.org, secdispatch <secdispatch@ietf.org>, dispatch@ietf.org, gendispatch@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org, int-area@ietf.org, ops-area@ietf.org, witarea@ietf.org, core-chairs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Reply-To: gendispatch@ietf.org
Subject: [Secdispatch] IANA policies "... with expert review" (Re: [Alldispatch] IETF-Wide Dispatch – Call for topics)
List-Id: Security Dispatch <secdispatch.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdispatch/xmJg6gwTVQw__HD24fCha7FvCSE>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdispatch>
List-Help: <mailto:secdispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:secdispatch-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:secdispatch@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:secdispatch-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:secdispatch-leave@ietf.org>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 21:15:00 -0000
X-Original-Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 23:14:34 +0200
On 10. May 2024, at 22:13, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.s.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > > If you would like time at the meeting to discuss your work or ideas, please reply to this email with your request by May 24th. I apologize for being a day late (but of course time does not actually advance during weekends…). We have had a longstanding, small but tricky problem with the IANA registration policies defined in BCP 26: this has policies that involve designated experts and policies that require some IETF consensus (IETF review, Standards Action), but no policies that actually combine these requirements. One might think that IETF consensus should be higher-ranking than expert review, but for some registries there is registry-specific knowledge that may be required for making a correct registration and that may be concentrated in the designated experts. IETF consensus based registration sometimes circumvents that knowledge, which can lead to incorrect registrations or to emergency actions to avoid such incorrect registrations (which in turn can lead to port-465-style problems [2]). The draft at [0] aims to create pre-made policies that solve this problem by combining IETF consensus with expert review. This has been discussed for almost a decade, probably more during meetings than on mailing lists. Finally writing this up was triggered by the specific instance of [1]. We would like to discuss this issue (and how well the current draft succeeds at addressing the issue) on the gendispatch ML, adjust the draft, and then have it on the agenda of the gendispatch meeting in Vancouver. Grüße, Carsten [0]: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-bormann-gendispatch-with-expert-review-00.html [1]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/BENVbgmF0px40GPW-zlA4nHI8So [2]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8314 (The 465 problem was created by a set of circumstances distinct from the problem we hope to solve by “…with expert review”, but it is a rather impressive example for how long unstable registrations can linger if not addressed heads-on early.
- [Secdispatch] IETF-Wide Dispatch – Call for topics Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
- [Secdispatch] IANA policies "... with expert revi… Carsten Bormann
- [Secdispatch] Re: [dispatch] IANA policies "... w… John C Klensin
- [Secdispatch] Re: IANA policies "... with expert … Donald Eastlake
- [Secdispatch] Re: [dispatch] Re: IANA policies ".… John C Klensin
- [Secdispatch] Re: [Alldispatch] [dispatch] Re: IA… Carsten Bormann