Re: [Drip] plan for SAM codepoints / DRIP interim meeting in 2 days / IETF 117 in 1 month

[Robert Moskowitz <[e-mail]>]

I strongly agree.

We NEED to move on.  Other activities are occurring and items like my 
draft-moskowitz-drip-a2x-adhoc-session are needed adoption to balance 
with other proposals for other players in aviation.

On 6/26/23 11:52, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
> More and more I feel that we are overthinking this whole thing.  I 
> think we should do exactly what Stu prescribed.  No Trust involvement, 
> no IANA involvement.  LLC involvement primarily to pay the bill.  The 
> LLC personnel requests the codepoints, ICAO assigns them, and the Drip 
> WG puts them into the draft.  Or, one of you DRIP guys does the 
> registration mechanics, and gets reimbursed for the $400 by the LLC.
>
> S.
>
> *From: *Robert Moskowitz <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Monday, June 26, 2023 at 08:46
> *To: *Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]>, Jay Daley 
> <[e-mail]>, Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] 
> <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, 
> Philip Kenul (ASTM) <[e-mail]>, Da Silva, Saulo 
> <[e-mail]>, Goodfellow, Michael <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [Drip] plan for SAM codepoints / DRIP interim meeting 
> in 2 days / IETF 117 in 1 month
>
> If any IETF work ever needs a new SAM code point, it will be in the 
> document that specifies it.
>
> In normal IETF life, an IANA registry is created.  But here we are 
> using values in someone else's registry.  With over a years' knowledge 
> that this was the plan.
>
> So how to break this logjam that we all had a hand in.
>
> On 6/26/23 11:33, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>
>     Adding Joel.
>
>     Hi Eric,
>
>     if I understood Stu’s “checklist” correctly
>     (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tm-rid/ifJHJyB7zCA7l0Wc4XETdekCb0E/
>     , step 7), DRIP’s idea is to hard-code the four codepoints into
>     https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-drip-auth-30.html into
>     section 3.2.3.1.1
>     <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-drip-auth-30.html%20into%20section%203.2.3.1.1>
>     before publication as an RFC. At which point we would have a) the
>     ASTM-designated registry, b) the hard-coded values extracted from
>     this registry, and potentially c) a IANA-maintained copy of the
>     ASTM-designated registry.  That’s an overkill, no?
>
>     One potential question is whether that hard-coding of SAM Types in
>     an RFC is a good idea. But I have not followed in sufficient
>     detail the WG to have an opinion here.
>
>     Stephan
>
>     P.s.: not adding [e-mail]. Clearly, this is not IETF
>     Trust business.
>
>     *From: *Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Date: *Monday, June 26, 2023 at 08:23
>     *To: *Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>,
>     Jay Daley <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Cc: *Stu Card <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>     <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>,
>     [e-mail] <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>,
>     [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>     <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>,
>     [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>, Philip Kenul (ASTM)
>     <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>, Da
>     Silva, Saulo <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>,
>     Goodfellow, Michael <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Subject: *Re: [Drip] plan for SAM codepoints / DRIP interim
>     meeting in 2 days / IETF 117 in 1 month
>
>     I think that Joel's point would be more suitable for the case
>     where IETF would acquire a large number of code points and only
>     re-use part of them for one draft. In this specific case, we would
>     acquire only 4 of them and allocate all of them for a specific
>     protocol. So, I am not sure whether an IANA registry would be
>     required **but** listing those code points on the IANA would be
>     good (like done for some IEEE ones).
>
>     *From: *Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Date: *Monday, 26 June 2023 at 16:59
>     *To: *Jay Daley <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Cc: *Stu Card <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
>     <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
>     <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
>     <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
>     <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
>     <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>, "Philip Kenul (ASTM)"
>     <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>, "Da
>     Silva, Saulo" <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>,
>     "Goodfellow, Michael" <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Subject: *Re: [Drip] plan for SAM codepoints / DRIP interim
>     meeting in 2 days / IETF 117 in 1 month
>     *Resent from: *<[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Resent to: *Erik Kline <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>, Eric Vyncke <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Resent date: *Monday, 26 June 2023 at 16:59
>
>     Yes, but I don’t understand Joel’s answer either.
>
>     S.
>
>     *From: *Jay Daley <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Date: *Monday, June 26, 2023 at 07:53
>     *To: *Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Cc: *Stu Card <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>     <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>,
>     [e-mail] <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>,
>     [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>     <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>,
>     [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>, Philip Kenul (ASTM)
>     <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>, Da
>     Silva, Saulo <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>,
>     Goodfellow, Michael <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Subject: *Re: [Drip] plan for SAM codepoints / DRIP interim
>     meeting in 2 days / IETF 117 in 1 month
>
>     Hi Stephan
>
>     As noted in my email below, the following recommendation came from
>     your fellow Trustee: "to work with IANA to create a DRIP registry
>     that explicitly records those code points assigned to the IETF by
>     ICAO".
>
>     cheers
>
>     Jay
>
>         On 26 Jun 2023, at 15:45, Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]>
>         <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>         Hi,
>
>         I got on this through the IETF Trustees list—I follow drip
>         only from a distance nowadays.
>
>         I don’t understand: why involve IANA in this?  You are not
>         creating a registry, you are requesting codepoints from
>         someone else’s registry, correct?  Or is this discussion about
>         IANA being a candidate for the registrar that is mentioned in
>         section 3.2.3.1.1
>         ofhttps://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-drip-auth-30.html?
>
>         Stephan
>
>         *From:*Tm-rid <[e-mail]>
>         <mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of Jay Daley
>         <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         *Date:*Monday, June 26, 2023 at 07:36
>         *To:*Stu Card <[e-mail]>
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>         <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         *Cc:*[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>         <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>,
>         [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>         <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>,
>         Philip Kenul (ASTM) <[e-mail]>
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>, Da Silva, Saulo
>         <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>, Goodfellow,
>         Michael <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         *Subject:*Re: [Drip] plan for SAM codepoints / DRIP interim
>         meeting in 2 days / IETF 117 in 1 month
>
>         To follow up.  I've heard back from the Trust that they are
>         not the right people to be the registrant but they also
>         recommend "to work with IANA to create a DRIP registry that
>         explicitly records those code points assigned to the IETF by
>         ICAO" so I guess that means the following:
>
>         - LLC to register these codepoints with LLC as registrant,
>         IESG as the contact email address, using the data supplied
>         - If/when an IANA registry is created for this then at that
>         point we discuss with IANA if they should be the registrant
>         and maintain the registration
>
>         Kim - if you want to chip in now then please do.
>
>         While I understand Eric’s concern about us paying a fee, the
>         view expressed by Lars before he went on PTO was that it was
>         up to them how they managed their registry and we should just
>         pay as asked, so I will do follow that guidance.
>
>         Please let me know if there are any concerns with this,
>         otherwise I will do the deed tomorrow, assuming the ICAO
>         portal is working then.
>
>         Jay
>
>         > On 26 Jun 2023, at 14:49, Stu Card
>         <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         wrote:
>         >
>         > DRIPsters –
>         >  This message is just to ensure we are all on the same page,
>         or at least in the same book chapter😉and to provide an audit
>         trail.
>         > Below is my inquiry, sent to several of the key players a
>         week ago, as to whether indeed this is our plan for SAM
>         codepoints.
>         > There seemed to be consensus that it is.
>         > Questions have arisen in IETF as to which entity (e.g. IESG,
>         Trust, Admin LLC) should be our registrant.
>         > ICAO is having some mundane IT issues that have temporarily
>         taken the registration request portal offline.
>         > ASTM has not yet officially responded to our Liaison
>         Statement request, but we do not want that to delay us.
>         > We have a DRIP interim virtual meeting JUN 28 THU 1000 EDT
>         via MeetEcho and this is a major agenda item.
>         >https://meetecho-interims.ietf.org/conference/?group=54b18b96-cf83-42aa-b57a-c9bd2517fe93
>         > All, please, if you have any objections to the plan below,
>         raise them on this list before this Thursday.
>         > Likewise, if you have any high confidence, relevant
>         informational updates, please share them ASAP.
>         > Only if we get codepoints very soon will the DRIP WG meet in
>         IETF 117 San Francisco JUL 22-28.
>         > Thank you!
>         >  -- Stu
>         > 315-725-7002 mobile
>         > (if it urgently requires interactive discussion)
>         >  From: Stu Card <[e-mail]>
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         > Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 11:29 PM
>         > Subject: Re: ICAO Registration fees
>         > …
>         > I think at this point our steps are:
>         >  (1) DRIP WG (starting w/Adam, clearing through chairs
>         Daniel and Med) pass the final consensus registration request
>         data to IESG (starting w/Eric).
>         >  (2) IESG asks IETF LLC to do it.
>         >  (3) An IETF LLC staffer goes to the portal… enters the
>         registration request data and pays the $400.
>         >  (4) ICAO passes the registration request to the designated
>         expert reviewer…
>         >  (5) The expert reviewer signs off immediately as he has
>         long known it was coming and has had the opportunity to review
>         the required specification (our 2 thus far published RFCs and
>         one of our drafts that for publication as an RFC awaits only
>         assignment of these codepoints).
>         >  (6) ICAO assigns the codepoints, lists them publicly and
>         informs both ASTM and IETF that they have done so.
>         >  (7) Adam inserts the codepoints into his Broadcast RID
>         Authentication draft and offers it for DRIP WG Last Call, you
>         all know the process from there…
>
>
>         --
>         Jay Daley
>         IETF Executive Director
>         [e-mail]
>
>         --
>         Tm-rid mailing list
>         [e-mail]
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tm-rid
>
>     -- 
>     Jay Daley
>     IETF Executive Director
>     [e-mail]
>
>
>
>