IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Uta] Second WGLC for draft-ietf-uta-rfc7525bis-05

"Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net> Mon, 14 February 2022 18:17 UTC

Return-Path: <oej@edvina.net>
X-Original-To: uta@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uta@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C643B3A08BC; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 10:17:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4laHaTylnPYV; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 10:17:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp7.webway.se (smtp7.webway.se [IPv6:2a02:920:212e::205]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FF503A08D9; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 10:17:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (h-176-10-205-12.A165.corp.bahnhof.se [176.10.205.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp7.webway.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 17728217B; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 19:17:27 +0100 (CET)
From: "Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net>
Message-Id: <0B33CF7A-79B6-4C60-B8A3-6DA77F326853@edvina.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0860B773-510B-4163-8CFF-4B6502B5A1EB"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 15.0 \(3693.40.0.1.81\))
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 19:17:26 +0100
In-Reply-To: <1124F14E-0CA5-4B6F-B293-083D9F4EAC09@akamai.com>
Cc: Valery Smyslov <valery@smyslov.net>, "uta@ietf.org" <uta@ietf.org>, Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se>, "draft-ietf-uta-rfc7525bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-uta-rfc7525bis@ietf.org>, "uta-chairs@ietf.org" <uta-chairs@ietf.org>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
References: <021b01d82197$6cf5dc60$46e19520$@smyslov.net> <7C66DF11-FA4F-4FBD-A0A0-33B8701B676D@edvina.net> <1124F14E-0CA5-4B6F-B293-083D9F4EAC09@akamai.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3693.40.0.1.81)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/2awv8tpCR8QvnxXCl_BUytuNXxQ>
Subject: Re: [Uta] Second WGLC for draft-ietf-uta-rfc7525bis-05
X-BeenThere: uta@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: UTA working group mailing list <uta.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/uta>, <mailto:uta-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/uta/>
List-Post: <mailto:uta@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uta-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta>, <mailto:uta-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 18:17:42 -0000


> On 14 Feb 2022, at 16:46, Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> I’ve tried to register ALPN for SIP/2.0 for a long time now, but fail to get responses and confusing ones.
>  
> I don’t recall seeing the request, and I am one of the designated experts for the TLS registries.  I wonder where you asked?  Tls-reg-review@iana.org <mailto:Tls-reg-review@iana.org> is the place to write to.  That address doesn’t seem to be written down anywhere well-known.
I have sent you separately our previous conversation that seemed to end in a black hole after I wrote the draft.

>  
> It seems unclear whether we need to write new RFCs for SIP in order to get a registration, but that seems wrong to me.
> 
> The requirement is that somewhere there be a stable document.  Since they don’t expire, an internet-draft is sufficient.  More likely, if the SIP documents talk about TLS, and ideally mention ALPN, that’s enough, just mention whatever docs in your email.
There’s a draft

> 
> It must be much easier to get this done. 
>  
> Sorry for your frustration.  Perhaps the current draft could add a sentence giving the email address?
>  
Add a clarification that for old protocols, at least a draft is needed to make life simpler and avoid at least one round-trip :-)

/O

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email