> 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
