Re: A proposal from Adrian on the des deprecation registry

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [...]
>
> I think you are conflating setting the status column to "deprecated",
> which should not require additional process beyond making the decision
> to deprecate the enctype (which is an _IETF_ action, not something the
> IESG does unilaterally) with making the schema change to introduce the
> column.  It seems the schema change might require some amount of
> process, if for no other reason than that IANA has tried hard over the
> last few years to get itself out of the business of making unilateral
> decisions about registries and their contents.

First, no schema was ever specified for this registry, only initial
content.  That initial content implies a minimal schema, but today's
deprecation of enctypes clearly implies that enctypes have at least a
metadata attribute indicating whether they are deprecated or not.  If
we're going to imply important things to the IANA in one case I don't
see why not in another, unless you want to set an example for others,
in which case we should pull the I-D out of the RFC-Editor queue and
start the process over as punishment for not having dotted every t and
crossed every i.  Mind you, I don't think that pulling the I-D is the
right answer -- if we failed, partly the process failed us by putting
IANA's review so late in the process that we now have no clue what
process to follow to fix a trivial bug.

Let's not compromise the quality of the registry by *refusing* to do
the utterly, painfully, obnoxiously obvious thing that is adding a
status column as a result of... an RFC changing the status of an item
in the registry.  (See how obvious that is?)

If the WG chairs, AD(s), and/or IESG are willing to make up a process
by which to approve the addition of a column to these registries, then
please do so, but do so quickly and make that process light-weight.
The most/slowest process that this triviality should require is a
consensus call on the KRB-WG list + AD approval.

(If there were disagreement w.r.t a status column for any reason other
than the process for adding that column being unclear, then we'd have
a substantive lack of consensus requiring abandonment of that proposal
or more process to make progress.  But that's not the situation.)

Nico
--
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg