> On Apr 4, 2018, at 12:48, Alexey Melnikov <aamelni...@fastmail.fm> wrote: > > Hi Benjamin, > > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018, at 10:50 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: >> 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 >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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.
Yep my bad - fixing this. >>> 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. > > I suppose this can work, but typically "IESG Approval" is used for exception > cases, where here it is always used. I think "IETF Consensus or IESG > Approval" is more natural way of phrasing the intent. We wanted a bar that implied some adult supervision hence the IESG Approval :). I’d prefer to leave it at the lower because technically IETF Consensus also includes IESG Approval right? I mean if somebody gets their draft through the process doesn’t it end with IESG approval? >> 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. Here’s a link to the PR: https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates/pull/70 spt _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
