Thanks. This is what S 11.1 is supposed to do. -Ekr
On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 11:25 AM Amanda Baber <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> > *Date: *Monday, May 19, 2025 at 10:28 AM > *To: *Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com>, Ketan Talaulikar < > ketant.i...@gmail.com> > *Cc: *The IESG <i...@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446...@ietf.org" < > draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446...@ietf.org>, "tls-cha...@ietf.org" < > tls-cha...@ietf.org>, "tls@ietf.org" <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
