Hi Ben and Alexey, FYI, I've updated the three drafts with the proposal above for IANA considerations update.
Best, --julien On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:17 AM, Ben Campbell <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Jul 15, 2016, at 8:53 AM, Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Julien, >> >>> On 15 Jul 2016, at 02:17, Julien Laganier <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Ben & Alexey, >>> >>> Thanks for clarifying. We've discussed your suggestion with Terry >>> Manderson from IANA and have agreed on proceeding as follows: >>> >>> RFCXXXX, obsoleted by this document, made the following IANA >>> allocation in <insert registry name>: <describe existing allocations>. >> >> ... and the allocation policy. > > Yes, that too. > >> >>> IANA is requested to replace references to [RFCXXXX] by references to >>> this document in the the <insert existing registry name> registry. >>> >>> This document also requests IANA to make these additional <describe >>> new allocation> in <insert existing or new registry>". >>> >>> If this is okay with you both I will proceed with updating >>> draft-ietf-hip-rfc520{3,4,5}-bis accordingly. >> >> Sounds good to me. > > Me, too. > > Thanks! > > Ben > >> >> Thank you, >> Alexey >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> --julien >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Ben Campbell <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On 8 Jul 2016, at 10:53, Tom Henderson wrote: >>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for >>>>>>> draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-07: Discuss >>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> DISCUSS: >>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The IANA considerations section does not seem to stand alone without >>>>>>> reading RFC 5204. As you are obsoleting RFC 5204, readers shouldn't be >>>>>>> expected to read it in order to discover original IANA instructions. >>>>>>> I think you should copy information from RFC 5204. >>>>> >>>>>> On 07/08/2016 07:17 AM, Julien Laganier wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Alexey, >>>>>> >>>>>> The IANA Considerations used to be a copy of RFC 5204 but someone >>>>>> asked that it be cleaned up. I will copy it back in the next revision. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> --julien >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I was probably the person suggesting the current writeup, based on my >>>>> previous interaction with IANA regarding RFC 7401 publication. >>>>> >>>>> Before making any IANA section changes, I would like to ask for further >>>>> clarification, because it seems to me that the guidance being given now >>>>> conflicts with instructions we received from IANA when revising RFC 5201 >>>>> to >>>>> become RFC 7401. >>>>> >>>>> When RFC 5201 was updated to RFC 7401, we originally followed the "copy >>>>> forward the IANA section" approach, but were told by IANA that they >>>>> preferred that we instead state the updates to be taken on existing >>>>> registries rather than repeating earlier actions that were already taken >>>>> to >>>>> create the registries. >>>> >>>> >>>> In my opinion, you need both. The text needs to make it clear what actions >>>> IANA needs to take _now_. But it also needs to fully document any >>>> registries/registrations so that other readers can find it, keeping in mind >>>> that an obsoleted RFC is, well, obsolete. Note that this is usually at >>>> least >>>> somewhat different from simply copying the old text forward. This is >>>> especially true when updating the reference for a registry or registration >>>> to point to the bis document; this only makes sense if the bis draft >>>> actually describes that registry or registration. >>>> >>>> I think it's perfectly reasonable to say something of the form of "RFCXXXX, >>>> obsoleted by this document, made these requests of IANA: <old-stuff>. This >>>> document mades these additional requests: <new-stuff>" >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> That led to the following revisions (where you can see, when using the >>>>> IETF rfcdiff tool, in version 14 it is a copy forward while version 15 it >>>>> updates the existing registries): >>>>> >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis-14.txt >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis-15.txt >>>>> >>>>> - Tom >> > _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
