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

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

> On Apr 2, 2018, at 15:20, Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-04: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I'd suggest that the authors review the OpsDir review:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-04-opsdir-lc-romascanu-2018-02-20/
> 
> I especially agree with #1 ("It would be useful from an operator perspective to
> add to the registries where the Recommended column is added a text similar to
> the one in Section 6,…")

I submitted a PR to address this:
https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates/pull/62/files
I’ll merge in a bit.

> I'm guessing it is not needed, but should there be a note to the RFC editor to
> fix the "IANA [SHALL prepend/has prepended]..." bit to "IANA has prepended..."
> throughout? 'tis probably obvious enough, but I figured worth asking.

Yeah I figure we can do this during the AUTH48 stage ;)

> The Nits Checker grumps about missing Updates in the Abstract -- I was getting
> ready to fuss about this, and then found "This document updates many (D)TLS
> RFCs (see updates header)." - this seems like a fine hack to me.

Glad you liked the hack!

spt