> On Feb 20, 2018, at 05:44, Dan Romascanu <dromasca@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu > Review result: Has Issues > > I am the assigned OPS-DIR reviewer for this draft. The OPS DIrectorate reviews > a great part of the IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the OPS ADs. > Please treat with these comments as with all other IETF LC comments. Please > wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new > version of the draft. > > This document which updates several TLS and DTLS RFCs describes a number of > changes to TLS IANA registries that range from adding notes to the registry all > the way to changing the registration policy. This is not a protocol or a > protocol update document, thus a full OPS-DIR review conforming to RFC 5706 is > not needed. From an operational point of view this document is important, as > operators may need to refer to IANA registries in their daily work of ensuring > functionality and maintaining networks where TLS and DTLS are used. > > The document is Ready from an OPS-DIR perspective, with a few minor issues. The > issues listed below are useful for all categories of users of this document: > implementers, operators, end users. None is them is major, but it would be good > to be addressed before the document approval. > > 1. The document adds a Recommended column to many of the TLS registries. The > rationale and meaning of a parameter being or not being Recommended are > detailed in Section 6. It would be useful from an operator perspective to add > to the registries where the Recommended column is added a text similar to the > one in Section 6, that explains the rationale and the meaning. Something on the > lines of: > > * 'If a parameter is marked as Recommended, implementations > should support it. Adding a recommended parameter > to a registry or updating a parameter to recommended status > requires standards action. Not all parameters defined in standards > track documents need to be marked as recommended. > > If an item is not marked as Recommended it does not necessarily mean > that it is flawed, rather, it indicates that either the item has not > been through the IETF consensus process, has limited applicability, > or is intended only for specific use cases.’ I’m sure that adding this note wouldn't hurt, but we’re updating all of the registries that are getting a Recommended column to point to this document. So I could could go either way here - what do other folks think? > 2. Also Section 6. All sections that add Recommended columns need to also > modify the References column in order to add a reference to this document. So, I think we’ve done that (double checking): - s8 adds a recommended column and updates references - s9 adds a recommended column and updates references - s10 adds a recommended column and updates references - s13 adds a recommended column and updates references - s15 adds a recommended column and updates references > 3. Section 14. IANA shall update the reference for this registry to also refer > this document. s4 also updates the references to this document so at first I was confused, but I think you’re looking for: OLD: 120 no_application_protocol Y [RFC7301] NEW: 120 no_application_protocol Y [RFC7301][this-RFC] PR submitted: https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates/pull/62 > 4. Section 18. s/ Criteria that SHOULD be applied by the Designated Experts > includes determining whether the proposed registration duplicates existing > functionality/Criteria that SHOULD be applied by the Designated Experts > includes determining whether the proposed registration does not duplicate > existing functionality/ I stole this wording from another RFC so I’m leaning towards leaving it as is. spt
