Hi Paul, > Why is this WG considering making this document Standards Track instead of > Informational? Also, why is the > WG considering putting the document in our work stream at all? Can the WG can > bring much value to the > document itself? We do have lots of other things we are working on. > > There is no procedural need for this document to be part of the DNSOP working > group. In order for this > algorithm to get an algorithm number from IANA, all that is needed is an RFC. > National crypto algorithms is > one of the common use cases for the Independent Stream in the RFC Series. > Suggesting that the authors > publish it there will take less time for all of us, will conceivably get it > published as an RFC sooner, and fulfills > the requirement for them to get their assignment from IANA.
The draft is going to allocate a code point from the "Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms" registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types/ds-rr-types.xhtml#ds-rr-types-1). which has a "Standards Action" update policy. It would be much easier if publication via ISE was possible. Regards, Valery Smyslov. > --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
