If the real reason for this draft is to set conformance levels for
DNSSEC (something that I strongly support), then it should be a one-page
RFC that says "This document defines DNSSEC as these RFCs, and
implementations
MUST support these elements of that IANA registry". Then, someone can conform
or not conform to that very concise RFC. As the conformance requirements
change, the original RFC can be obsoleted by new ones. That's how the IETF
has always done it; what is the problem with doing it here?
Second that. Let's not overload the registry. As Edward Lewis wrote in another
message, "The job of a registry is to maintain the association of objects with
identities." If the WG wants to specify mandatory-to-implement functions or
algorithms, the proper tool is to write an RFC.
-- Christian Huitema
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf