Hi Sean,
Thanks for the answer and for addressing my comments. On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 4:11 PM, Sean Turner <sean@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> or is intended only for specific use cases.’
> 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,
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?
I *think* that the note would help - clarifying what 'not marked as Recommended' means vs. (possibly) writing 'no' in the Recommended column.
> 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]
Yes, indeed, this is what I was looking for.
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.
You are the native English speaker, but my acquired English skills tell me that 'criteria' means what should happen (avoid duplication).
spt
