RE: AD review of draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodearch-key-02
Julian Satran <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ips |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <OF1723ED7D.95189F00-ONC2257209.00542357-C2257209.00542D8C@il.ibm.com> |
works for me - julo [email protected] 16/10/06 16:45 To Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, <[email protected]> cc <[email protected]> Subject RE: [Ips] AD review of draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodearch-key-02 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