Re: Examples needed of IANA values in -bis documents

["Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Paul,

The LTRU WG's main job (as the name says: Language Tag Registry Update) 
was to update data in the IANA registry (two times, under two different 
charters).

The updates happened via Internet-Drafts. We separated the 'protocol' 
aspects (going to RFC as is) from the registry update data (going to IANA).

We were very concerned about people looking at a future RFC (frozen) 
rather than the IANA registry (actively updated). Therefore, the RFC 
Editor was instructed to remove the bulk of the 'registry update' draft 
before publishing it to an RFC.

See http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-10 (close to 1000 
pages) vs. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5645 (11 pages) for the most 
recent charter.

For the first charter, see 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ltru-initial-06 (118 pages) vs. 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4645 (7 pages).

In the first round, it took quite a bit of time to work this out, but I 
don't think anybody involved has any reasons to regret this aspect of 
our work, I think overall, it worked really well. As a consequence, none 
of the people involved had to spend unproductive time telling others 
"well, the RFC is incomplete/irrelevant, the IANA registry is what counts".

Regards,   Martin.


On 2009/11/30 11:17, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Greetings again. Yaron and I have an interesting situation in the IPsecME WG, and we are looking for historical experience from other WGs that might relate to it. We are doing a -bis revision to IKEv2 (RFC 4306). RFC 4306 contains many tables with values that were used to fill in the IANA IKEv2 registry. Our -bis document has carried those tables forward, but we have gotten some questions about what the tables mean given that the IANA registry now has additional entries added after RFC 4306 was published.
>
> Some folks would like to see the values removed from the -bis document and statements added that developers should see the IANA registry. Some folks would like to leave the tables as they were. Some folks would like to see the tables left in and updated to match the current registry.
>
> Yaron and I would like to find WGs that have already faced this issue and find out what you did, and whether it was considered a good idea afterward. We are *not* looking for more opinions; we have plenty of those already. What would be most useful to our WG is examples of what has happened in the IETF in the past. Thanks in advance!
>
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium
>

-- 
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:[e-mail]