Hi!
The recently expired draft-openpgp-iana-registry-updates-01 specifies
one of the goals of the WG to make the assignment of new identifier etc
easier. I am not sure whether this drafts can be integrated into
RFC-4880bis but the IANA Considerations section in RFC-4880bis needs
anyway a rework because the demanded registries are existent and only
need to list new items.
I am not sure how to do this. For example RFC-4880 reads
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
10.1. New String-to-Key Specifier Types
OpenPGP S2K specifiers contain a mechanism for new algorithms to turn
a string into a key. This specification creates a registry of S2K
specifier types. The registry includes the S2K type, the name of the
S2K, and a reference to the defining specification. The initial
values for this registry can be found in Section 3.7.1. Adding a new
S2K specifier MUST be done through the IETF CONSENSUS method, as
described in [RFC2434].
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
What I did until now was to replace RFC REVIEW (aka IETF CONSENSUS) by
SPECIFICATION REQUIRED and to reference RFC-8126. See the gitlab
repo. The draft-openpgp-iana-registry-updates-01 has this text
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
5.1. PGP String-to-Key (S2K) Registry
Proposed changes to the registry:
o Rename the registry to "OpenPGP String-to-Key (S2K) Algorithms"
o Change registry policy to *Specification Required*.
o Update its "Reference" to also refer to this document.
o A Standards Track document is required to register an S2K
algorithm with the value "Yes" in any recommendation.
Add the following note:
Note: Experts are to verify that the proposed registration
provides a publicly-available standard that can be implemented
in an interoperable way, with notable benefits for the wider
OpenPGP community.
Update the following registrations:
+---------+--------------------+-------+-------+--------------------+
| ID | S2K Type | REC-S | REC-I | Reference |
+---------+--------------------+-------+-------+--------------------+
| 0 | Simple S2K | No | Yes | Section 3.7.1.1 of |
| | | | | [RFC4880] |
| 1 | Salted S2K | No | Yes | Section 3.7.1.2 of |
| | | | | [RFC4880] |
| 2 | Reserved | | | Section 3.7.1 of |
| | | | | [RFC4880] |
| 3 | Iterated and | Yes | Yes | Section 3.7.1.3 of |
| | Salted S2K | | | [RFC4880] |
| 4-99 | Unassigned | | | |
| 100-110 | Private or | | | Section 3.7.1 of |
| | Experimental Use | | | [RFC4880] |
| 111-255 | Unassigned | | | |
+---------+--------------------+-------+-------+----------------
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
I doubt that it is advisable to merge this into RFC-4880bis because this
is a request for one time action of the IANA. However a request to
change from IETF REVIEW to SPECIFICATION REQUIRED is an actual action we
like to see and that should go into a new RFCs.
Any hints on how to proceed?
Shalom-Salam,
Werner
--
Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.
pgpk9Yf5x9hO6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp