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

[Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]>]

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]<mailto:[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]<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
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]<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
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 of https://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]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [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
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]<mailto:[e-mail]>

--
Tm-rid mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tm-rid

--
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>