All I've been going over the CfA comments, and discussing this with my chairs and Warren, and perhaps the best way to walk through the logic in our decision is to work backwards.
The authors are requesting a code point for their algorithm in this IANA registry: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types/ds-rr-types.xhtml#ds-rr-types-1 To receive such a code point a "Standards Action", which is defined as: For the Standards Action policy, values are assigned only through Standards Track or Best Current Practice RFCs in the IETF Stream. Which means that 1) Informational will not work; and 2) Independent Stream will not work. In the excellent discussion on this, what seems to be the underlying consensus is the need to publish the document to establish the code point, and document it as such. To not adopt this means, the implementers could easily pick their own There was also discussion on updating the table in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8624#page-5 (implementation recommendations for DNSKEY algorithms), and here seemed to be some consensus around MAY There was also an orthogonal discussion around changing the registry from "Standards Action" to "RFC Required". While this seems to be a simple procedural move, I fear that doing so haphazardly without understanding the operational considerations is completely wrong (Remember, We are DNS OPerations) Mr. Wouters made the very correct comment that "no one outside the IETF really knows the difference for RFCs anyway." This was something I was reminded of all too well during the DNS RPZ discussions. Summary: Adopt as Standards Track because we have to add text to the state as such. We will not spend a lot of WG time on this document, and Warren and I will end up doing the heavy lifting on all the process portions. thanks tim On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 6:42 PM Wes Hardaker <wjh...@hardakers.net> wrote: > Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> writes: > > > If the WG wants, this short draft could be a WG document. > > Yes please. > -- > Wes Hardaker > USC/ISI > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
