lamps-wg / cmp-updates

RFC4210bis and RFC6712bis
Other
2 stars 5 forks source link

Check if IANA references pointing to RFC 4210 must be updated to rfc4210bis #53

Closed HBrock closed 4 months ago

HBrock commented 4 months ago

IANA wrote: Should those references be replaced with references to this document (this is typical)? For IANA’s purposes, this could be covered by a line that says something like “All existing references to RFC 4210 at https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml and https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters/core-parameters.xhtml should be replaced with references to this document,” or “All existing references [...] except for the following registrations:”

HBrock commented 4 months ago

RFC XXXX is new RFC number of --> the assigned numerical RFC value for I-D.ietf-lamps-rfc4210bis RFC YYYY is new RFC number of --> the assigned numerical RFC value for I-D.ietf-lamps-rfc6712bis

https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml SMI Security for PKIX Module Identifier

SMI Security for PKIX Extended Key Purpose

SMI Security for PKIX CMP Information Types

SMI Security for PKIX CRMF Registration Controls

https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters/core-parameters.xhtml CoAP Content-Formats

HBrock commented 4 months ago

@russhousley may I ask for your advice? IANA asked me to specify which references shall be updated to the new RFC 4210bis and 6712bis. Above I provided a list. But I am uncertain if it is correct to update also references to the RFCs, where the OIDs were originally registered. For example I found OIDs with reference RFC 2510, even though the OID is still in use in RFC 4210. I had expected that this reference should have been updated to RFC 4210 back then.

russhousley commented 4 months ago

I did a very quick review. This looks correct to me.