Subject: Re: [Perc] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-perc-dtls-tunnel-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2021 14:57:31 -0600

> On Aug 20, 2021, at 10:39 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 6:17 PM Paul E. Jones <paulej=[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
>> (2) I'll also mention here so that the IESG can talk about it during our
>> telechat (but with no intent to insist on a change): this document
>> specifies a versioned protocol and creates a registry. Are we happy
>> with the current Informational status, as opposed to Proposed Standard?
>> I do see that the topic was touched on in the shepherd writeup, but the
>> treatment there did not feel especially compelling to me.
> 
> Hopefully that got resolved.  I'll await instructions on any requested changes here.
> 
> I'm not aware of a resolution.  I never got a reply after my message of July 1, where I suggested some possible paths by the working group.
> 
> -MSK
> 

I’m having a hard time understanding the problem here. As far as I know there is no requirement for a document to be standards track to create an IANA registry - am I missing something? I was under the belief that a document does not even need to be part of the IETF stream for inclusion into IANA.  

I would rather see this document published than go back to WGLC.

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 22:29:33 -0700

On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 1:57 PM Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 6:17 PM Paul E. Jones <paulej=
> [email-masked]> wrote:
>
>
> I'm not aware of a resolution.  I never got a reply after my message of
> July 1, where I suggested some possible paths by the working group.
>
> -MSK
>
>
> I’m having a hard time understanding the problem here. As far as I know
> there is no requirement for a document to be standards track to create an
> IANA registry - am I missing something? I was under the belief that a
> document does not even need to be part of the IETF stream for inclusion
> into IANA.
>

I'll follow up with Ben and the others during the next IESG telechat (in
about nine hours).

In any event, it looks like Paul needs to post a new version before this
can go forward.

-MSK

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 23:56:27 -0700

On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 10:29 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> about nine hours)

I did this just now, and he reminds me that the IESG on review of this
document found that it actually meets the bar for Proposed Standard, since
it specifies a protocol with interoperable implementations, and we were
wondering if the Working Group really wanted to stick with Informational.
The IANA question was secondary.

So I'm happy to send it through as-is, but I wanted to get that point
covered first.  Unfortunately I have had very little success getting anyone
to answer my inquiries.

-MSK

---

From: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 15:00:18 -0400

I have a draft prepared already. I'll publish it later today and wait for further input.

Paul

-------- Original Message --------
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Sent: September 23, 2021 1:29:33 AM EDT
To: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>, Paul Jones <[email-masked]>, Suhas Nandakumar <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], The IESG <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Perc] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-perc-dtls-tunnel-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

-MSK

---

From: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 01:14:54 +0000

I've published -10: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-perc-dtls-tunnel-10

------ Original Message ------
From: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>; "Cullen Jennings" 
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "Benjamin Kaduk" <[email-masked]>; "Suhas Nandakumar" 
<[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 
[email-masked]; "The IESG" <[email-masked]>
Sent: 9/23/2021 3:00:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Perc] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on 
draft-ietf-perc-dtls-tunnel-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>, Paul Jones <[email-masked]>, 
>Suhas Nandakumar <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], 
>[email-masked], [email-masked], The IESG 
><[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: [Perc] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on 
>draft-ietf-perc-dtls-tunnel-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>
>>On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 6:17 PM Paul E. Jones 
>><paulej=[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>I'm not aware of a resolution.  I never got a reply after my message 
>>>of July 1, where I suggested some possible paths by the working 
>>>group.
>>>
>>>-MSK
>>>
>>
>>I’m having a hard time understanding the problem here. As far as I 
>>know there is no requirement for a document to be standards track to 
>>create an IANA registry - am I missing something? I was under the 
>>belief that a document does not even need to be part of the IETF 
>>stream for inclusion into IANA.
>>
>I'll follow up with Ben and the others during the next IESG telechat 
>(in about nine hours).
>
>In any event, it looks like Paul needs to post a new version before 
>this can go forward.
>
>-MSK

---

From: Suhas Nandakumar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 21:04:50 -0700

> covered first.  Unfortunately I have had very little success getting anyone

[Suhas]  From what I understand, authors are fine with either Standards
track or an Informational reference. Informational was chosen with the
intent of helping have a standard reference to enable interop and if IESG
experts recommend the spec could be a Standards track one, we should be ok
with it . Hope this helps