Hi Ben & Alexey,
Thanks for clarifying. We've discussed your suggestion with Terry
Manderson from IANA and have agreed on proceeding as follows:
RFCXXXX, obsoleted by this document, made the following IANA
allocation in <insert registry name>: <describe existing allocations>.
IANA is requested to replace references to [RFCXXXX] by references to
this document in the the <insert existing registry name> registry.
This document also requests IANA to make these additional <describe
new allocation> in <insert existing or new registry>".
If this is okay with you both I will proceed with updating
draft-ietf-hip-rfc520{3,4,5}-bis accordingly.
Best,
--julien
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Ben Campbell <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 8 Jul 2016, at 10:53, Tom Henderson wrote:
>
>>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
>>>> draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-07: Discuss
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> DISCUSS:
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> The IANA considerations section does not seem to stand alone without
>>>> reading RFC 5204. As you are obsoleting RFC 5204, readers shouldn't be
>>>> expected to read it in order to discover original IANA instructions.
>>>> I think you should copy information from RFC 5204.
>>>>
>>
>> On 07/08/2016 07:17 AM, Julien Laganier wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Alexey,
>>>
>>> The IANA Considerations used to be a copy of RFC 5204 but someone
>>> asked that it be cleaned up. I will copy it back in the next revision.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> --julien
>>
>>
>> I was probably the person suggesting the current writeup, based on my
>> previous interaction with IANA regarding RFC 7401 publication.
>>
>> Before making any IANA section changes, I would like to ask for further
>> clarification, because it seems to me that the guidance being given now
>> conflicts with instructions we received from IANA when revising RFC 5201 to
>> become RFC 7401.
>>
>> When RFC 5201 was updated to RFC 7401, we originally followed the "copy
>> forward the IANA section" approach, but were told by IANA that they
>> preferred that we instead state the updates to be taken on existing
>> registries rather than repeating earlier actions that were already taken to
>> create the registries.
>
>
> In my opinion, you need both. The text needs to make it clear what actions
> IANA needs to take _now_. But it also needs to fully document any
> registries/registrations so that other readers can find it, keeping in mind
> that an obsoleted RFC is, well, obsolete. Note that this is usually at least
> somewhat different from simply copying the old text forward. This is
> especially true when updating the reference for a registry or registration
> to point to the bis document; this only makes sense if the bis draft
> actually describes that registry or registration.
>
> I think it's perfectly reasonable to say something of the form of "RFCXXXX,
> obsoleted by this document, made these requests of IANA: <old-stuff>. This
> document mades these additional requests: <new-stuff>"
>
>
>>
>> That led to the following revisions (where you can see, when using the
>> IETF rfcdiff tool, in version 14 it is a copy forward while version 15 it
>> updates the existing registries):
>>
>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis-14.txt
>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis-15.txt
>>
>> - Tom
_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
