On 11/7/22 06:30, Tero Kivinen wrote:
Robert Moskowitz writes:
Value Description
1 A DSA Public Key is present, in the format defined in [RFC2536]
2 A RSA Public Key is present, in the format defined in [RFC3110]
3 An ECDSA Public Key is present, in the format defined in [RFC6605]
I can remove the reference column? It seems this is always called for.
So either we accept the build errors that still result in a usable
draft, or we make these entries two lines like:
How about we cut the "is present" text. I do not think it gives any
useful information. I mean if there is key in format defined in some
rfc in this RR, then yes, the key is present, we do not need to repeat
that.
0 No key is present
1 A DSA Public Key in the format defined in [RFC2536]
2 A RSA Public Key in the format defined in [RFC3110]
3 An ECDSA Public Key in the format defined in [RFC6605]
Or we could even split the reference and format in different columns:
Value Description Format description Reference
0 No key is present [RFC4025]
1 A DSA Public Key [RFC2536] Section 2 [RFC4025]
2 A RSA Public Key [RFC3110] Section 2 [RFC4025]
3 An ECDSA Public Key [RFC6605] Section 4 [RFC4025]
TBD1 An EdDSA Public Key [RFC8080] Section 3 [ThisRFC]
Adding the section numbers would be useful, as those documents define
both DNSKEY and RRSIG resource records, so pointing to one of them
helps.
I like this second way. Does including the sec occur in any other
registries? We will have to ask IANA; it does make sense as you say in
this specific case.
We would need to get IANA signoff on this, IMO.
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
