Hey Ketan, Just about the general bis/ianabis issue:
Coming to the RFC8126 guidance for bis document, yes there is a lot of latitude but with that results in a lot of variance across documents. I hope this is something that can be relooked at as part of the ianabis work. We definitely plan to. There’s some tentative new text in 8126bis, but it needs to be cleaned up and integrated into the section. I’ll get it into a more useful state for -01. Thanks, Amanda Thanks, Ketan On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 11:55 PM Amanda Baber <amanda.ba...@iana.org<mailto:amanda.ba...@iana.org>> wrote: For the record, IANA’s OK with reproducing the original actions as long as there’s a clearly-labeled subsection that lists the new actions. It could be useful to also place the original actions under a heading like “RFC 8446 Actions” or something, but the opening paragraph does explain what’s happening here. The issue for us is that when one document obsoletes another, we’re typically meant to replace all references in the IANA registries unless there’s some reason to leave a registration out (typically, if it’s being deprecated or obsoleted). We would also be OK with a line that said “All references to RFC X in the IANA registries have been replaced with references to this document, except for the following registrations:” or something along those lines, although we generally prefer that any detailed instructions to applicants or designated experts be carried over. Thanks, Amanda From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40akamai....@dmarc.ietf.org>> Date: Monday, May 19, 2025 at 10:28 AM To: Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com<mailto:e...@rtfm.com>>, Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com<mailto:ketant.i...@gmail.com>> Cc: The IESG <i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>>, "draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446...@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446...@ietf.org>>, "tls-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:tls-cha...@ietf.org>" <tls-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:tls-cha...@ietf.org>>, "tls@ietf.org<mailto:tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org<mailto:tls@ietf.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [TLS] Re: Ketan Talaulikar's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis-12: (with COMMENT) We often have the case where IANA is asked to do something and by the time the RFC is published, they’ve already done it. In those situations we often change “IANA is requested to …” to “IANA has …” This particular situation is not different. If we obsolete 8446 and don’t carry the considerations forward, completely, in this draft, it needlessly raises the questions of (a) if 8446 is obsoleted, are structure and content of the existing registries still in line with IETF consensus; or (b) do you mean to only obsolete *those parts* of 8446 that don’t talk about the IANA consideratons? I strongly agree with EKR, that having a single complete spec, rather than a “diff spec” is an important thing to do here. It was also the WG view as well.
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
