I will trim the purely editorial stuff, as the authors should be able to handle that (and have already started, since the cipher suite/hash+signature algorithm thing was already noted).
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 09:56:16AM -0700, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-04: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I support the idea behind this document. I have a few minor issues which I > would like to discuss before recommending its approval: > > 1) In several places: > > "IESG action is REQUIRED for a Yes->No transition." > > Firstly, this should be "IESG Approval", not "IESG action" (according to RFC > 8126). Sure, let's use the right term. > Secondly, are you saying that this is the ONLY way to transition from Yes to > No? Surely, Standards Action should also be allowed in case there is no rush? > Besides IESG is likely to prefer a document explaining the transition anyway. Is IESG Approval mutaully exclusive with Standards-Action? My reading of 8126's: New assignments may be approved by the IESG. Although there is no requirement that the request be documented in an RFC, the IESG has the discretion to request documents or other supporting materials on a case-by-case basis. is that a standards-track document could include an "IESG Considerations" section that requests the IESG to effect the transition. That is to say, while I have no objection to your proposed (idea for) text, I also am not sure that it is qualitatively different from the current text. -Benjamin _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
