At 13:18 -0400 6/1/11, Scott Rose wrote:
This doc doesn't change that at all. You can still implement whatever
you want, just not claim conformance to this doc.
If that's the case, then there should be no IANA changes from this document.
Our main reason for replacing the registry table with a doc containing a
new table was that not all implementors may be good at sorting through
the IETF archives looking for every DNSSEC related RFC and BCP. Have a
simple table at a well known repository will hopefully reduce that
I think there's a misunderstanding about the role of a registry table
and a profile when it comes to conformance. E.g., look at the DNS
registry of RR type codes. Implementations would support a type by
using the directions in the documents indicated in the last column.
This does not indicate whether the type is a good idea to support or
not, just indicates the definition.
There is no list of types that "are actually in use." That would be
nice to have. If this document is trying to fill that role, then
fine, but don't change the underlying registry table.
As far as "Applicability Statement" in the title, which Olafur notes
is defined in RFC 2026 (an unreferenced document, need to add that
then), then make this document an applicability statement and not a
change to a registry.
NeuStar You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468
Now, don't say I'm always complaining.
Wait, that's a complaint, isn't it?
Ietf mailing list