Subject: [Ntp] IANA policies for NTS registries

From: Daniel Franke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 09:36:38 -0400

The current NTS draft provides for an IANA policy of Specification
Required or higher for the registerable (non-private/exprimental)
portion of the NTS Record Type, Error Code, and Warning Code
registries, but only requires Expert Review for the Next Protocols
Registry. My original thinking here which motivated this discrepancy
was that Record Types, Error Codes, and Warning Codes all have
semantics that must be understood during the course of the NTS-KE
protocol and may be sent without prior negotiation, while Next
Protocols are negotiated and are only significant after NTS-KE has
already been completed. After giving more thought to this, though, I'm
less sure that there's any relevant distinction to be made here, since
the spec already provides clear processing expectations for all
unrecognized Record Types, Error Codes, and Warning Codes. I no longer
think the discrepancy is justified and that all these registries
should be Expert Review. Does anyone else have any strong feelings on
this?

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 13:42:44 +0000

I very strongly prefer that anything that wants an IANA number must be documented.

---

From: Daniel Franke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 09:57:31 -0400

Should I understand this as advocating that they all change to
Specification Required instead?

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 14:55:36 +0000

That's my preference, but I'm not going to make it a big deal.  "Downgrading," however, would be a step backward.

---

From: Daniel Franke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 10:59:43 -0400

There's absolutely no inertia here so we should just decide what the right
thing is and do it. No need to worry about whether it's worth making a
change because the cost of making it is effectively zero.

That's my preference, but I'm not going to make it a big deal.
"Downgrading," however, would be a step backward.

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 15:03:42 +0000

For what it’s worth, I prefer spec required on all.

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 11:45:33 -0400

Speaking from experience...

> For what it’s worth, I prefer spec required on all.

I think Specification Required is the best fit of the options outlined
in RFC 5226.

Specification Required allows for wide latitude on "how" the relevant
code point is documented while providing control over it being written
down. This is much more lenient than something like RFC Required or
Standards Action.

Generally, Expert Review requires the identification of a variety of
experts who IANA can rely on to provide timely assessment of each and
every request.

I will note that specification required does need the WG to identify: 1)
the group of people (Designated Experts) who will assess the
specification and 2) the guidelines for making that assessment.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Daniel Franke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 11:53:50 -0400

Specifaction Required entails Expert Review to ensure the sufficiency of
the specifaction. And yes, we need to work out who the designated experts
will be, although not as part of the document text. I'd default to it being
the authors + the WG chairs, unless anyone wants to either opt out or
volunteer.

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018, 11:45 Brian Haberman <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
>

---

From: Daniel Franke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 11:55:57 -0400

Anyway, we now have two people in favor of Specifaction Required and I
don't have any strong feelings on it myself, so that's what's going into
the next draft unless more people speak up.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 20:49:41 +0200

I also recommend Specification Required after reading RFC 5226.

-----"ntp" <[email-masked]> wrote: -----

>To: "Brian Haberman" <[email-masked]>
>From: "Daniel Franke" 
>Sent by: "ntp" 
>Date: 08/28/2018 17:56
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [Ntp] IANA policies for NTS registries
>
>Anyway, we now have two people in favor of Specifaction Required and
>I don't have any strong feelings on it myself, so that's what's going
>into the next draft unless more people speak up.
>Specifaction Required entails Expert Review to ensure the sufficiency
>of the specifaction. And yes, we need to work out who the designated
>experts will be, although not as part of the document text. I'd
>default to it being the authors + the WG chairs, unless anyone wants
>to either opt out or volunteer.

---

From: Marcus Dansarie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 22:02:49 +0200

> the next draft unless more people speak up.
For the record, I'm also in favor of Specification Required.

Kind regards,
Marcus Dansarie