On Sat, Dec 01, 2018 at 07:21:43AM +0000, Ronald Tse wrote:
Hi Ben, Derek,
Derek is absolutely right, here.
I fully agree that managing two documents is more complex than handling
one.
I'll note that for TLS 1.3 we did separate documents, RFCs 8446 and
8447,
since there were a *lot* of registry changes and we did want a permanent
record of them, but that split caused a lot of extra work to ensure
things
were synchronized during AUTH48.
However, the OpenPGP IANA update document was created from a suggestion by
the Security AD, where the TLS registry update model was the acceptable
role model to follow. RFC 8447 is at 17 pages; this document is close to
30 - the OpenPGP IANA registries are numerous and changes to them many,
since a lot of them have been dilapidated since the days of 2440.
If we merge this into 4880bis and remove them at publication, we're adding
30 pages (temporarily) and then maybe removing 25 at publication. And we
lose the permanent record that RFC 8447 provides for TLS. Perhaps there is
an argument that the registries of OpenPGP aren't as important (!) as
TLS's for permanent record keeping, and therefore should be relegated to
an Internet-Draft, but it doesn't sound like a good reason to forgo that.
Given that the IETF process has already processed the pair of 8446/8447
successfully in a synchronized way, would it be possible that it's even
easier this time round?
Most of the pain of 8447 was on the WG chairs and AD to manually do
consistency checks. I don't expect much of an efficiency gain from
practice, but I suppose there are probably ways to distribute the work that
we did not explore very well for 8447.
-Ben
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp