Subject: [(nowhere)] FW: Please re-review draft-ietf-secsh-publickeyfile [I06-050928-0006]

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:32:14 -0500

Folks, I'm holding a discuss on the ssh publickeyfile draft because  IANA
doesn't understand what they are supposed to do.
The IANA change is one I didn't see discussed on the list and it seems to have introduced problems.

Bill, I assume you can work to resolution on this.

([unix socket]) by solipsist-nation (Cyrus
v2.1.16-IPv6-Debian-2.1.16-10) with LMTP; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:19:34
-0500 X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Return-Path: <[email-masked]>
Received: from south-station-annex.mit.edu
(SOUTH-STATION-ANNEX.MIT.EDU [18.72.1.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher
DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested)
by suchdamage.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEE1413105 for
<[email-masked]>; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:19:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from fort-point-station.mit.edu (FORT-POINT-STATION.MIT.EDU
[18.7.7.76]) by south-station-annex.mit.edu (8.12.4/8.9.2) with ESMTP
id k1ALJWRj027225 for <[email-masked]>; Fri, 10 Feb 2006
16:19:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from g13.icann.org (g13.icann.org
[192.0.34.122]) by fort-point-station.mit.edu (8.12.4/8.9.2) with
ESMTP id k1ALJOwA022905 for <[email-masked]>; Fri, 10 Feb 2006
16:19:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from g13.icann.org (g13.icann.org
[127.0.0.1]) by g13.icann.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id
k1ALJaHL013768 for <[email-masked]>; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:19:36
-0800 Received: (from apache@localhost) by g13.icann.org
(8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id k1ALJaMx013767; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:19:36
-0800 Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:19:36 -0800 Message-Id:
<[email-masked]> To: [email-masked]
Subject: FW: Please re-review draft-ietf-secsh-publickeyfile
[I06-050928-0006] From: [email-masked] Reply-To:
[email-masked] Cc: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.42
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on
solipsist-nation.suchdamage.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No,
score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no
version=3.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0

Sam,

Sorry for the delayed response.

I have reviewed the new version and have put new comments in the tracker.
However, the IANA Considerations section still needs work.  There is not much detail regarding what type of registry, are these values, what are the registration procedures, etc.

If you need for me to look at a new version of the IANA Considerations section, please let me know.

Thanks,

Michelle
IANA

-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Hartman [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 5:59 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Please re-review draft-ietf-secsh-publickeyfile

Hi. the IANA considerations for this draft used to include no actions but
now includes actions. I'd appreciate it if you would review these actions.

---

From: Joseph Galbraith <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:19:22 -0700

The introduction of the iana section was in
response to a comment by Jacob Nevins with
regards to this section:

3.3.3.  New Headers

   Headers with header-tags beginning with "x-" are considered
   experimental, and may be used without IETF consensus.

   All other headers are reserved for use only by IETF consensus.

Jacob noted in his email:
> Doesn't this imply the existence of an IANA registry, contrary
to what
> section 5 "IANA Considerations" says?

I'll see if I can work on a little bit more for the IANA section
(text welcome if someone knows exactly what details IANA needs.)

Thanks,

Joseph

Sam Hartman wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>

---

From: Jacob Nevins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:16:06 +0000

Joseph Galbraith writes:
> The introduction of the iana section was in response to a comment by
> Jacob Nevins [...]

It was also noted by the IESG (Brian Carpenter quoting Joel Halpern's
Gen-ART review).

> (text welcome if someone knows exactly what details IANA needs.)

I guess RFC2434/BCP0026 might be of use?

Could it be as simple as moving the language about "IETF Consensus" and
X-headers to the IANA Considerations section, and referencing 2434?

---

From: Jacob Nevins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 22:09:51 +0000

> X-headers to the IANA Considerations section, and referencing 2434?

Sam Hartman threatened to bounce this draft if nothing happened before
the end of February. Something has happened, but then it all went quiet
again. So, here's a minimal attempt to sort out the "IANA
Considerations" section, based on reading RFC 2434:

Section 3.3 "Key file header", change the following text:

before:
   Compliant implementations MUST ignore unrecognized header fields.
   Implementations SHOULD preserve unrecognized header fields when
   manipulating the key file.

after:
   The space of header-tags is managed as described in Section 5.

   Compliant implementations MUST ignore headers with unrecognized
   header-tags. Implementations SHOULD preserve such unrecognized
   headers when manipulating the key file.

Section 3.3.3 "New Headers": replace whole section:

before:
3.3.3.  New Headers

after:
3.3.3.  Private Use Headers

   Headers with header-tags beginning with "x-" are reserved for
   private use.

Section 5 "IANA Considerations": replace entire section text:

before:
   An IANA registry needs to be created containing the defined header-
   tags.  These are 'subject' and 'comment'

after:
   Section 3.3 defines a new namespace of "Header-tags". These are
   US-ASCII strings of maximum length 64 characters, and are
   case-insensitive.

   The following header-tags are defined by this document:
     subject
     comment

   In addition, all header-tags beginning with "x-" are reserved for
   Private Use, as defined in [RFC2434].

   Further allocations are to be made by IETF Consensus, as defined
   in [RFC2434].

Section 7.2 "Informative References" (right section?): add one:

   [RFC2434]  Narten, T. and Alvestrand, H., "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 2434,
              October 1998.

---

From: Joseph Galbraith <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:43:17 -0700

Thank you!

I will make the changes you suggest and re-publish this evening
or tomorrow morning so we beat the meeting cutoff.

Thanks,

Joseph