On Jun 18, 2020, at 9:20 PM, Martin Thomson <m...@lowentropy.net> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020, at 01:30, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> It might be better, and faster, for this WG to adopt a one-paragraph >> draft that makes the DS registry "RFC required", like the other >> DNSSEC-related registries. > > I think you mean "Specification Required".
I do not. > RFC required has the same net effect, but the side effect being that you > burden the ISE with these requests. "RFC required" forces the specification to be stable enough for the ISE (or the IESG, for individual submissions) to approve publication. Using "specification required" means that someone can write an Internet Draft, get the code point, then realize that their draft was wrong due to lack of community review. The result is either: - Two code points for similarly-named algorithms - A code point whose definition is a moving target Using "RFC required" is not perfect (due to errata and RFC updates), but it does mean that there is at least some community review before the code point is allocated. --Paul Hoffman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
