Procedural question: is it the right thing for a RFC to state that it
"creates a
new registry" for those registries which were actually created by an older
RFC
it is obsoleting?
If you're talking about the Notation Flags registry, it doesn't
currently exist at IANA:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/pgp-parameters/pgp-parameters.xhtml
So yes, while the initial values that populate it came from the older,
obsoleted RFC, this RFC *is* the one that is creating the registry.
No. I'm talking about every section but the "Signature Notation Data Subpacket
Notation Flags" :-)
The other sections of §10 were already created by 4880.
It's probably explained somewhere, although I don't find the exact answer.
I see however that
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html#section-8 mentions IANA
registration info should be updated to the new RFC, so I guess the
answer is that instead of "This specification creates a registry" they
should all be "This specification becomes the reference for registry…"
or something along that line.
I have opened https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/issues/23 to track
this.
Best regards
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp