Subject: [TLS] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-04: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 10:31:19 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

1) Section 18: "However, to allow for the allocation of values prior to
publication,
   the Designated Experts may approve registration once they are
   satisfied that such a specification will be published."
This sounds like it's simply the early allocation process (rfc7120). Maybe it's
useful to name it like this to avoid confusion.

2) Also section 18: "IANA [...] SHOULD direct all requests for registration to
the review mailing list." Why is this not a MUST?

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:33:38 -0400

> On Mar 29, 2018, at 13:31, Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I know this is no excuse but I copied the text for the expert pool for RFC7519.

> useful to name it like this to avoid confusion.

I think what you’re suggesting is:

OLD:

  However, to allow for the allocation of values prior to publication,
  the Designated Experts may approve registration once they are
  satisfied that such a specification will be published.

NEW:

  However, to allow for the allocation of values prior to publication
  (i.e., and early allocation), the Designated Experts may approve
  registration once they are satisfied that such a specification will
  be published.

> the review mailing list." Why is this not a MUST?

Because the IESG :)  The only reason I could think of is that the DE pool has been slow, it’s not getting fixed, and IANA is like that’s it I’m sending this to the IESG.

spt