Ah, yes, Paul is quite correct. My implicit assumption was that such keywords would be added to an IANA registry only in as far as they echo IETF standards track documents (including the deprecation or obsolescence of such documents). Of course, IANA itself cannot add normative requirements - only an IETF standards action can do that.
Regards Brian On 2010-03-18 12:10, Paul Hoffman wrote: > At 9:43 AM +1300 3/18/10, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> In my opinion this is not ready for prime time. > > I agree with all of Brian's issues, and add another one that is equally, if > not more, significant. This document talks about an IANA registry having > entries for compliance, but does not describe what the compliance is applied > to. > >> 3.1. MANDATORY >> >> This is the strongest requirement and for an implementation to ignore >> it there MUST be a valid and serious reason. >> >> Implementations: To be considered compliant, all implementations >> MUST support this registry entry. >> Operations: To be considered compliant, operations MUST use at least >> one of the mandatory entries. >> Note 1: There can be more than one MANDATORY requirement. >> Note 2: The requirement applies only to new or future >> implementations on the day the requirement is released. In many >> cases existing implementations can become compliant via software >> upgrade or point release. > > Look at an IANA registry such as the one that prompted this draft, > <http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers/dns-sec-alg-numbers.xhtml>. > If there is an algorithm that is now marked "MANDATORY", and your > implementation did not have it, you would not be in compliance with the > registry. > > The IETF has never had a concept of compliance to an IANA registry, which is > a good thing. Suggesting that we should start doing that now is just plain > wrong. > > It is *fine* to have an RFC specify which algorithms must be implemented / > supported / whatever for compliance to the RFC; we do that now just fine. > When the community agrees on changes to what is needed to comply with an RFC, > you update the RFC; we now do that just fine as well. > > Putting new words in an IANA registry will make things more confusing, not > less. > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > --VPN Consortium > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
