Hi,
Werner Koch <wk(_at_)gnupg(_dot_)org> writes:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 06:00, tse(_at_)ribose(_dot_)com said:
The question raised by Werner (as I understood it) was more about how
to align the IANA considerations given in 4880bis with this document,
and whether to merge the said document into 4880bis. For the intended
Right. I am not sure what is the right procedure here. Are the tables
with the various ids in rfc4880bis normative or are the informational
and the IANA registry is the normative reference for them. For
practical point of view I would like to have the tables in rfc4880bis
to be normative with the note that the IANA registry defines updates to
these tables.
I agree with Ron that the procedures on how to update the IANA registries
do not belong into rfc4880bis. We need some advice from IETF procedures
experienced people (or a pointer to an RFC describing these procedures).
Speaking for myself (but with the knowledge of being a former chair of
the OpenPGP WG), it's perfectly fine to put the one-time IANA process
details into the 4880bis draft. What is often done is to add an
RFC-Editor note to remove the IANA actions section(s) upon publication.
What happens is that the draft will get approved with all the IANA
actions in it, but when it gets edited into an actual RFC, the one-time
IANA actions can be removed.
There is still the historical record of the one-time actions in the i-d
history, but it de-clutters the RFC.
I recommend we take this approach, because getting TWO I-D through the
process will be twice as much work for everyone involved than getting
only one through the process. We have enough trouble with just the
one. So I would recommend we integrate in the one-time actions with a
note to remove it upon publication.
Salam-Shalom,
Werner
-derek
--
Derek Atkins 617-623-3745
derek(_at_)ihtfp(_dot_)com www.ihtfp.com
Computer and Internet Security Consultant
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp