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.
> 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.
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
