rfc9519.original		rfc9519.txt
	Internet Engineering Task Force P. Yee		Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) P. Yee
	Internet-Draft AKAYLA		Request for Comments: 9519 AKAYLA
	Updates: 4250, 4716, 4819, 8308 (if approved) 8 September 2023		Updates: 4250, 4716, 4819, 8308 January 2024
	Intended status: Standards Track		Category: Standards Track
	Expires: 11 March 2024		ISSN: 2070-1721
	Update to the IANA SSH Protocol Parameters Registry Requirements		Update to the IANA SSH Protocol Parameters Registry Requirements
	draft-yee-ssh-iana-requirements-03
	Abstract		Abstract
	This specification updates the requirements for adding new entries to		This specification updates the registration policies for adding new
	the IANA Secure Shell (SSH) Protocol Parameters registry. Currently,		entries to registries within the IANA "Secure Shell (SSH) Protocol
	the requirement is generally for "IETF Review", as defined in RFC		Parameters" group of registries. Currently, the registration policy
	8126, although a few portions of the registry require "Standards		is generally IETF Review, as defined in RFC 8126, although a few
	Action". This specification will change that former requirement to		registries require Standards Action. This specification will change
	"Expert Review". This draft updates RFC 4250, RFC 4716, RFC 4819,		that former requirement to Expert Review. This document updates RFCs
	RFC 8308.		4250, 4716, 4819, and 8308.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This is an Internet Standards Track document.
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		received public review and has been approved for publication by the
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
			Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
	This Internet-Draft will expire on 11 March 2024.		Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
			and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
			https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9519.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.		(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are		include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
	provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.		Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
			in the Revised BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction
	1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1.1. Requirements Language
	2. SSH Protocol Parameters Affected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. SSH Protocol Parameters Affected
	3. Designated Expert Pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		3. Designated Expert Pool
	4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		4. IANA Considerations
	5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		5. Security Considerations
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		6. References
	7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		6.1. Normative References
	7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		6.2. Informative References
	7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		Acknowledgements
	Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		Author's Address
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	The IANA Secure Shell (SSH) Protocol Parameters registry was		The IANA "Secure Shell (SSH) Protocol Parameters" registry was
	populated by several RFCs including [RFC4250], [RFC4716], [RFC4819],		populated by several RFCs including [RFC4250], [RFC4716], [RFC4819],
	and [RFC8308]. Outside of some narrow value ranges that require		and [RFC8308]. Outside of some narrow value ranges that require
	Standards Action in order to add new values or are marked for private		Standards Action in order to add new values or that are marked for
	use, all other portions of the registry require IETF Review		Private Use, the registration policy for other portions of the
	[RFC8126]. This specification changes the requirement for sections		registry require IETF Review [RFC8126]. This specification changes
	currently requiring IETF Review to Expert Review. This change is		the policy from IETF Review to Expert Review. This change is in line
	made in line with similar changes undertaken for certain IPsec and		with similar changes undertaken for certain IPsec and TLS registries.
	TLS registries.
	1.1. Requirements Language		1.1. Requirements Language
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
	"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in		"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
	BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all		BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
	capitals, as shown here.		capitals, as shown here.
	2. SSH Protocol Parameters Affected		2. SSH Protocol Parameters Affected
	The following table lists the "Secure Shell (SSH) Protocol		The following table lists the "Secure Shell (SSH) Protocol
	Parameters" registries whose registration policy is changed from IETF		Parameters" registries whose registration policy has changed from
	Review to Expert Review. Where this change applies to a specific		IETF Review to Expert Review. Where this change applied to a
	range of values within the particular parameter, that range is given		specific range of values within the particular parameter, that range
	in the notes column.		is given in the notes column. Affected registries now list this
			document as a reference.
	+===============================+===========+=======================+		+===============================+===========+=======================+
	| Parameter Name | RFC | Notes |		| Parameter Name | RFC | Notes |
	+===============================+===========+=======================+		+===============================+===========+=======================+
	| Authentication Method | [RFC4250] | |		| Authentication Method | [RFC4250] | |
	| Names | | |		| Names | | |
	+-------------------------------+-----------+-----------------------+		+-------------------------------+-----------+-----------------------+
	| Channel Connection | [RFC4250] | 0x00000001-0xFDFFFFFF |		| Channel Connection | [RFC4250] | 0x00000001-0xFDFFFFFF |
	| Failure Reason Codes | | (inclusive) |		| Failure Reason Codes | | (inclusive) |
	| and Descriptions | | |		| and Descriptions | | |
	skipping to change at page 4, line 34 ¶		skipping to change at line 161 ¶
	| Signal Names | [RFC4250] | |		| Signal Names | [RFC4250] | |
	+-------------------------------+-----------+-----------------------+		+-------------------------------+-----------+-----------------------+
	| SSH Public-Key File | [RFC4716] | Excluding header-tags |		| SSH Public-Key File | [RFC4716] | Excluding header-tags |
	| Header Tags | | beginning with x- |		| Header Tags | | beginning with x- |
	+-------------------------------+-----------+-----------------------+		+-------------------------------+-----------+-----------------------+
	Table 1: Secure Shell (SSH) Protocol Parameters Affected		Table 1: Secure Shell (SSH) Protocol Parameters Affected
	The only IANA SSH protocol parameter registries not affected are		The only IANA SSH protocol parameter registries not affected are
	"Message Numbers" and "Publickey Subsystem Status Codes", as these		"Message Numbers" and "Publickey Subsystem Status Codes", as these
	remain at standard track policy due to their limited resources as		remain Standards Action due to their limited resources as one-byte
	one-byte registry values.		registry values.
	3. Designated Expert Pool		3. Designated Expert Pool
	Expert Review [RFC8126] registry requests are registered after a		Expert Review [RFC8126] registry requests are registered after a
	three-week review period on the <ssh-reg-review@ietf.org> mailing		three-week review period on the <ssh-reg-review@ietf.org> mailing
	list, and on the advice of one or more designated experts. However,		list, and on the advice of one or more designated experts. However,
	to allow for the allocation of values prior to publication, the		to allow for the allocation of values prior to publication, the
	designated experts may approve registration once they are satisfied		designated experts may approve registration once they are satisfied
	that such a specification will be published.		that such a specification will be published.
	skipping to change at page 5, line 21 ¶		skipping to change at line 193 ¶
	<iesg@ietf.org> mailing list) for resolution.		<iesg@ietf.org> mailing list) for resolution.
	Criteria that SHOULD be applied by the designated experts includes		Criteria that SHOULD be applied by the designated experts includes
	determining whether the proposed registration duplicates existing		determining whether the proposed registration duplicates existing
	functionality (which is not permitted), whether it is likely to be of		functionality (which is not permitted), whether it is likely to be of
	general applicability or useful only for a single application, and		general applicability or useful only for a single application, and
	whether the registration description is clear.		whether the registration description is clear.
	IANA MUST only accept registry updates from the designated experts		IANA MUST only accept registry updates from the designated experts
	and the IESG. It SHOULD direct all requests for registration from		and the IESG. It SHOULD direct all requests for registration from
	other than those sources to the review mailing list.		other sources to the review mailing list.
	It is suggested that multiple designated experts be appointed who are		It is suggested that multiple designated experts be appointed who are
	able to represent the perspectives of different applications using		able to represent the perspectives of different applications using
	this specification, in order to enable broadly informed review of		this specification, in order to enable broadly informed review of
	registration decisions. In cases where a registration decision could		registration decisions. In cases where a registration decision could
	be perceived as creating a conflict of interest for a particular		be perceived as creating a conflict of interest for a particular
	Expert, that Expert SHOULD defer to the judgment of the other		expert, that expert SHOULD defer to the judgment of the other
	Experts.		experts.
	4. Acknowledgements
	The impetus for this specification was a February 2021 discussion on
	the CURDLE mailing list [CURDLE-MA].
	5. IANA Considerations		4. IANA Considerations
	This memo is entirely about updating the IANA SSH Protocol Parameters		This memo is entirely about updating the IANA "Secure Shell (SSH)
	registry.		Protocol Parameters" registry.
	6. Security Considerations		5. Security Considerations
	This memo does not change the Security Considerations for any of the		This memo does not change the Security Considerations for any of the
	updated RFCs.		updated RFCs.
	7. References		6. References
	7.1. Normative References		6.1. Normative References
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[RFC4250] Lehtinen, S. and C. Lonvick, Ed., "The Secure Shell (SSH)		[RFC4250] Lehtinen, S. and C. Lonvick, Ed., "The Secure Shell (SSH)
	Protocol Assigned Numbers", RFC 4250,		Protocol Assigned Numbers", RFC 4250,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC4250, January 2006,		DOI 10.17487/RFC4250, January 2006,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4250>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4250>.
	skipping to change at page 6, line 32 ¶		skipping to change at line 244 ¶
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
	[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC		[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
	2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,		2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
	May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.		May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
	[RFC8308] Bider, D., "Extension Negotiation in the Secure Shell		[RFC8308] Bider, D., "Extension Negotiation in the Secure Shell
	(SSH) Protocol", RFC 8308, DOI 10.17487/RFC8308, March		(SSH) Protocol", RFC 8308, DOI 10.17487/RFC8308, March
	2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8308>.		2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8308>.
	7.2. Informative References		6.2. Informative References
	[CURDLE-MA]		[CURDLE-MA]
	Turner, S., "Time to Review IANA SSH Registries		Turner, S., "Subject: [Curdle] Time to Review IANA SSH
	Policies?", February 2021,		Registries Policies?", message to the Curdle mailing list,
			February 2021,
	<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/curdle/		<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/curdle/
	gdiOlZr9bnrZv8umVyguGG3woIM/>.		gdiOlZr9bnrZv8umVyguGG3woIM/>.
	[RFC4716] Galbraith, J. and R. Thayer, "The Secure Shell (SSH)		[RFC4716] Galbraith, J. and R. Thayer, "The Secure Shell (SSH)
	Public Key File Format", RFC 4716, DOI 10.17487/RFC4716,		Public Key File Format", RFC 4716, DOI 10.17487/RFC4716,
	November 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4716>.		November 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4716>.
			Acknowledgements
			The impetus for this specification was a February 2021 discussion on
			the CURDLE mailing list [CURDLE-MA].
	Author's Address		Author's Address
	Peter E. Yee		Peter E. Yee
	AKAYLA		AKAYLA
	Mountain View, Calif. 94043		Mountain View, CA 94043
	United States of America		United States of America
	Email: peter@akayla.com		Email: peter@akayla.com
End of changes. 24 change blocks.
	75 lines changed or deleted		73 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.