[saag] Re: draft-paulwh-crypto-components-01

Simon Josefsson <[email protected]> Thu, 06 Feb 2025 11:15:51 +0100

Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.saag
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Eliot Lear <[email protected]> writes:

> Hi!
>
> On 06.02.2025 10:07, John Mattsson wrote:
>>
>> As Simon says, JOSE relies on Expert Review, COSE relies on IETF
>> Review, and IPsec does not have a column and relies on separate RFCs
>> for implementation requirements.
>
> Let's first agree on what "Good" looks like.  I think what Paul wrote
> is *exactly* what good looks like, because RECOMMENDED indicates a
> high level of vetting.  So.  Why am I wrong (it happens all the time,
> but why THIS time? ;-)
>
> Once we agree on what Good looks like we can discuss how to get to
> Good.  There, we might need a bit more text, or some updates or
> something else...

What is wrong with the current approach of allowing each IANA registry
to be associated with its own set of rules, explained when setting up
the IANA registry?

I believe it is a bad idea to introduce new generic requirements that
apply to all existing IANA registries, like this quoted text:

   Decisions on setting the values in these columns to anything other
   than "MAY" require a standards track RFC.  That is, Independent
   Stream and IRTF RFCs cannot set or change the values in such a table
   in an IANA registry.

Another solution is to back down on having the RECOMMENDED columns in
IANA registries.  That seems to be a recent invention that has spread.
I don't see the purpose of storing that information in the registry: we
have RFC's to establish what is recommended and what is not recommended,
and that seems better suited for such complex discussions.

/Simon

_______________________________________________
saag mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 1.2 KB)