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