On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 8:38 AM Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> wrote:
> 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 > Sure. This seems not that desirable, but given that these algorithms are more or less by definition ones in which there is not that wide interest, not that big a deal. - A code point whose definition is a moving target > I agree that this is undesirable. The registrations should be tied to a single fixed draft version. > 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. > What's your reasoning for why there needs to be community review before there is a code point assigned? Would that still apply if the space were larger? -Ekr
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
