I wrote:
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?
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
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.
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.