Re: agent draft updated

all true, but...

AFAIK the existing protocol uses @openssh.com names, which don't need to be
registered.

An updated, IETF-maintained version of the protocol would be described in
an IETF-stream document, which can both register channel type and request
names and create the new registries.

On Wed, Aug 23, 2023, 11:57 tom petch <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of
> Damien Miller <[email protected]>
> Sent: 23 August 2023 06:45
> To: Jeffrey Hutzelman
> Cc: Simon Tatham; ietf-ssh
> Subject: Re: agent draft updated
>
>
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2023, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
>
> > Indeed, independent submissions cannot normally create new registries.
> > That's OK, though, because you don't actually need them. The purpose of
> the
> > independently-submitted information document would be to document the
> > existing protocol, both for the benefit of the community already using it
> > and as a starting point for standardization work. Such a document can
> simply
> > list the code points already used or reserved (the tables already in your
> > draft) and need not actually create any registries. The registry creation
> > can wait for publication of the eventual IETF-stream document.
>
> Ok, I've uploaded a version without the new IANA registries.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-miller-ssh-agent-10
>
> I assume it's okay to request new entries in existing registries?
> (This draft does)
>
> <tp>
> It depends and here it is not.
>
> The registry is defined as what is now known as Expert Review in the RFC
> that created the registry RFC8308  and that is explained in RFC8126 as
>   (Formerly called "IETF Consensus" in the first edition of this
>    document.)  With the IETF Review policy, new values are assigned only
>    through RFCs in the IETF Stream -- those that have been shepherded
>    through the IESG as AD-Sponsored or IETF working group documents
>
> So it must be an IETF WG document or AD-sponsored.  If the policy were
> Expert Review or RFC Required you would be ok but you are not.  And
> changing the policy cannot be done , that would likely require Standards
> Track.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> Thanks,
> Damien
>
>