Subject: [kitten] Kerberos IANA: Assigning pa-type 167

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 13:55:00 -0500

<hat role="iana expert" />

A while ago, I received the following registration request for the
PA-types registry:
Registry:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/kerberos-parameters/kerberos-parameters.xhtml#pre-authentication

Description:
We need padata type number 167 assigned for PA-PAC-OPTIONS for Windows 8
Kerberos extension specified in MS-KILE
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh553950(v=prot.13).aspx).

I sent mail to krb-wg about this.  My reaction was the registration
looked fine, but the procedures we adopted in RFc 6113 didn't actually
give me enough flexibility to approve it.  That needed to go through
IETF review.

Now, I think we're relaxing the registration procedures so if
draft-ietf-kitten-kerberos-iana were approved, then I could just approve
it as an expert.
However, to get this taken care of, I'm wondering if the WG would permit
us to simply include that registration in
draft-ietf-kitten-kerberos-iana.

We'll need supportive comments to do this; silence is insufficient.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2012 16:13:37 +0000

> draft-ietf-kitten-kerberos-iana.
I generally support encouraging registrations and doing whatever is 
sensible. So +1 to registering this.

On specific, I have a very minor point. I am not convinced that 
including a registration in draft-ietf-kitten-kerberos-iana is the best 
way forward.
Assuming registration templates are already archived somewhere (are 
they?), I suggest you ask IESG to approve 1 exception to the procedure 
based on your recommendation as the Expert Reviewer.

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:09:08 -0500

> they?),

I'm not sure what you mean.  The current registration procedures are
documented in RFC6113, and the new procedures are in the draft.

>  I suggest you ask IESG to approve 1 exception to the procedure 

I'm not sure what to make of this.  The registration procedures for the
registry in question do not include IESG Approval as an option, so for
the IESG to approve an exception, the conditions discussed in RFC5226
section 5.3 would need to apply.  And, I'm not convinced they do: we
don't yet have a "strong IETF consensus" to make the assignment, and
getting one does not seem to be likely to be faster than waiting for the
document to progress.  And, since the document in question updates the
registration procedures in ways that would permit the assignment, one
can hardly claim that the burden of doing so is too heavy.

I'm also not sure what the point is of including the registration in the
document explicitly.  That would have effect only once the document is
approved, at which point the expert could simply approve the
registration.

That said, I have no objection to adding the registration to the
document.  If people feel that using the override procedure is the way
to go, I'll be happy to lend my voice to an IETF consensus in support of
making the allocation.

-- Jeff

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 17:40:18 -0500

I agree with Jeff's rationale for why I don't think an IESG override is
appropriate here.
Including the registration in this document avoids a round trip once
this is approved, but if people object I can  obviously deal once
approved.

My preference is

1) register here

2) approve after  this doc is approved

---

From: Tom Yu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 23:30:22 -0500

> We'll need supportive comments to do this; silence is insufficient.

I think it's fine to put the new registration in our IANA registries
document, assuming there is WG consensus that it should be registered.
I personally have no problem with the proposed assignment.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 19:25:07 +0000

> documented in RFC6113, and the new procedures are in the draft.
Is IANA archiving approved registration templates on iana.org?
> can hardly claim that the burden of doing so is too heavy.
Ok, fair enough.
> approved, at which point the expert could simply approve the
That was sort of my point.
> document.
Same here.
> If people feel that using the override procedure is the way