Re: AD review of draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodearch-key-02

Works for me - this would really only be correcting a small oversight  
in 3270.

On Oct 16, 2006, at 23:45, [email protected] wrote:

> Julian and Lars,
>
> We could get clever here.  The crucial language in RFC 3720 says:
>
> 	For IANA registered keys the string following X# must be
> registered
> 	with IANA and the use of the key MUST be described by an
> informational RFC.
>
> and there's similar language for Y# digest formats and Z#  
> authentication
> methods.
>
> Given the level of review this draft has received (not only on the  
> list,
> but also in Montreal, I put crucial pieces of this draft's text on the
> projector for word-by-word review), I don't think there would be any
> problem with this draft becoming a proposed standard RFC, and it could
> then update RFC 3720 to change "informational RFC" to "informational,
> experimental or standards track RFC" in all three places.
>
> I would want to issue a WG Last Call on these changes (publish
> nodearch-key as proposed, standard, update RFC 3720 to allow
> experimental
> and standards-track RFCs for X# keys, Y# digests, and Z#  
> authentication
> methods), so that there is an adequate opportunity for anyone to  
> object.
>
> Comments?
>
> Thanks,
> --David (ips WG chair)
> ----------------------------------------------------
> David L. Black, Senior Technologist
> EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
> +1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
> [email protected]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> 	From: Julian Satran [mailto:[email protected]]
> 	Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 4:04 AM
> 	To: Lars Eggert
> 	Cc: [email protected]
> 	Subject: Re: [Ips] AD review of
> draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodearch-key-02
> 	
> 	
>
> 	Lars,
> 	
> 	Yes we wanted new keys to be publicly documented without
> requiring authors to go to a strict review (that might be hard to  
> get in
> several years).
> 	In retrospect we should have said "at least informational"
> although there is (at least in theory) an ordering between RFC
> "classes".
> 	
> 	Julo
> 	
> 	
> 	
> 	Lars Eggert <[email protected]>
>
> 	16/10/06 03:40
>
> 		
> 		To
> 		[email protected]
> 		cc
> 		
> 		Subject
> 		Re: [Ips] AD review of
> draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodearch-key-02
>
> 		
>
>
>
>
> 	On Oct 16, 2006, at 10:28, Lars Eggert wrote:
> 	>   Finally - why is this going for Informational and not PS? PS
> seems
> 	>   appropriate.
> 	
> 	To be precise, I saw David's note on this from the document
> writeup
> 	("This document is being published as Informational because RFC
> 3720
> 	indicates that this class of key specification should be
> published as
> 	informational.")
> 	
> 	It's unfortunate that 3720 doesn't also allow publication at
> 	Standards Track; I wonder what the rationale for this was.
> 	Intuitively, this should be OK, because Standards Track
> publication
> 	has a higher bar.
> 	
> 	If the WG decides to go for Informational because of 3720, I'm
> OK
> 	with it. It may make sense to add a short note to the
> introduction
> 	explaining this.
> 	
> 	Lars
> 	--
> 	Lars Eggert                                     NEC Network
> Laboratories
> 	
> 	
> 	_______________________________________________
> 	Ips mailing list
> 	[email protected]
> 	https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips
> 	
> 	
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ips mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips

Lars
-- 
Lars Eggert                                     NEC Network Laboratories

_______________________________________________
Ips mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips