+1
I think that people need to take a look at the past ten years and finaly
conclude that if the crazies haven't wrecked the Internet already they are not
going to. The idea of the IETF or IANA as some sort of gatekeeper protecting
the Internet is bogus. The only people who are going to listen are the people
who are least likely to cause a problem.
I would like to see the number of IANA registries for text strings reduced to
one. There is no reason why the term XYZ should be used in two different specs
with entirely different semantics. There is no shortage of terms to use. The
only thing that matters is that there is no collision.
We want DKIM to use the same tags for crypto algorithms as everything else.
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of John Levine
I generally agree with "RFC only", but haven't thought about
all eight
of the registries that -base asks to have created. It's not
clear that
we want to do this with all of them. For example, we might
want to set
a higher bar for the signature or hash algorithm than for
creation of a
new signature tag.
Remember that the point of the registry is primarily to
prevent namespace collisions. Registering a name for a new
algorithm doesn't change the DKIM spec, it just tells people
that if they want to fool around with that particular
algorithm, that's the name to use to be compatible with other
people doing the same. It'd take another standards track RFC
to promote a particular algorithm into the spec.
The main reason to limit registration is to avoid namespace
exhaustion, but since these are all variable length text
strings. that's not a problem. In general, the bar to IANA
registration has been set too high, which is why there's way
too many protocol parameters documented only in the folklore.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html