Re: [TLS] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-04: (with COMMENT)

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

> On Apr 4, 2018, at 12:48, Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Benjamin,
> 
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018, at 10:50 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>> I will trim the purely editorial stuff, as the authors should be
>> able to handle that (and have already started, since the cipher
>> suite/hash+signature algorithm thing was already noted).
>> 
>> On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 09:56:16AM -0700, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>>> Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
>>> draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-04: No Objection
>>> 
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> COMMENT:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> I support the idea behind this document. I have a few minor issues which I
>>> would like to discuss before recommending its approval:
>>> 
>>> 1) In several places:
>>> 
>>> "IESG action is REQUIRED for a Yes->No transition."
>>> 
>>> Firstly, this should be "IESG Approval", not "IESG action" (according to RFC
>>> 8126).
>> 
>> Sure, let's use the right term.

Yep my bad - fixing this.

>>> Secondly, are you saying that this is the ONLY way to transition from Yes to
>>> No? Surely, Standards Action should also be allowed in case there is no rush?
>>> Besides IESG is likely to prefer a document explaining the transition anyway.
>> 
>> Is IESG Approval mutaully exclusive with Standards-Action?
>> My reading of 8126's:
>> 
>>   New assignments may be approved by the IESG.  Although there is no
>>   requirement that the request be documented in an RFC, the IESG has
>>   the discretion to request documents or other supporting materials on
>>   a case-by-case basis.
>> 
>> is that a standards-track document could include an "IESG
>> Considerations" section that requests the IESG to effect the
>> transition.
> 
> I suppose this can work, but typically "IESG Approval" is used for exception cases, where here it is always used. I think "IETF Consensus or IESG Approval" is more natural way of phrasing the intent.

We wanted a bar that implied some adult supervision hence the IESG Approval :). I’d prefer to leave it at the lower because technically IETF Consensus also includes IESG Approval right?  I mean if somebody gets their draft through the process doesn’t it end with IESG approval?

>> That is to say, while I have no objection to your proposed (idea
>> for) text, I also am not sure that it is qualitatively different
>> from the current text.

Here’s a link to the PR:
https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates/pull/70

spt