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

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2018 13:20:00 -0700

Warren Kumari 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd suggest that the authors review the OpsDir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-04-opsdir-lc-romascanu-2018-02-20/

I especially agree with #1 ("It would be useful from an operator perspective to
add to the registries where the Recommended column is added a text similar to
the one in Section 6,...")

I'm guessing it is not needed, but should there be a note to the RFC editor to
fix the "IANA [SHALL prepend/has prepended]..." bit to "IANA has prepended..."
throughout? 'tis probably obvious enough, but I figured worth asking.

The Nits Checker grumps about missing Updates in the Abstract -- I was getting
ready to fuss about this, and then found "This document updates many (D)TLS
RFCs (see updates header)." - this seems like a fine hack to me.

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2018 23:54:45 -0500

> On Apr 2, 2018, at 15:20, Warren Kumari <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> the one in Section 6,…")

I submitted a PR to address this:
https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates/pull/62/files
I’ll merge in a bit.

> throughout? 'tis probably obvious enough, but I figured worth asking.

Yeah I figure we can do this during the AUTH48 stage ;)

> RFCs (see updates header)." - this seems like a fine hack to me.

Glad you liked the hack!

spt