ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: draft-ogud-iana-protocol-maintenance-words (Definitions for expressing standards requirements in IANA registries.) to BCP

2010-03-18 15:55:31
Christian,

On 2010-03-19 05:31, Christian Huitema wrote:
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.

Third that. In fact, this exactly the purpose of "applicability statement"
standards track documents, as defined in RFC 2026 for many years.

I have lingering sympathy for the ISD idea that John Klensin referred to,
but without changing any of our rules or procedures, an applicability
statement Proposed Standard could be drafted immediately.

    Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>