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

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

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.
> 
> > 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.

> 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.

Best Regards,
Alexey