At 13:52 -0400 6/1/11, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
We could remove the "Applicability Statement" in the title, if that would
help. Ed?
I think the issue is where to put what conventional wisdom considers
the current algorithms to use. No matter how much I think about it,
I think putting this in a registry is a mistake.
The problem is that a registry is a current state of affairs. It is
not versionable. I don't say my implementation is compliant with the
IANA registry of 1999. If I did, there's no way to check that.
However, I can say my implementation is compliant (as in built to the
contents of) RFC 2065. 'Course, RFC 2065 is obsolete, but my code
may not have been changed. If I re-implement to meet RFC 2535 and
then later to RFC 4033-4035, you can verify this via the history of
documents. The types in the IANA registry show the current
definitions, but the RFCs keep the history.
We received feedback at a meeting (in Maastricht, I think, and from
Steve Kent, I think) that the DNSEXT WG should pick some algorithms
and make it clear that those are the ones everyone ought to be able to
use, if they want to be interoperable with everyone else. We were
also advised to make clear the one(s) we believe to be "up next", on
the grounds that implementers and deployers can be ready.
Then just issue a document called "DNSEXT's Preferred Algorithms
2011" and make it an RFC. This way, in 10 years, we can sit back and
laugh at what was fashionable back in the day.
So, the goal here is threefold: (1) to collect all those MUSTs and
MUST NOTs into one RFC: anything not defined in that RFC as required
is completely optional; (2) to provide a single place where
implementers can find out where that advice is located; (3) to make
sure that we don't somehow end up with conflicting advice.
That would be nice, I just think a registry is the wrong place to put
that - because registries change and old (deployed) implementations
don't.
In this way, the draft is using the registry exactly as it was
intended: it is a control point that makes sure a given assignment
happens in a co-ordinated way. In this case, the assignment is "DNS
community current best advice about what will be maximally
interoperable." It's not a blessing; it's just another entry that
ensures co-ordination on the Internet in a way that ensures
interoperability is maximized.
But the "current best advice" changes. And old versions of software don't.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
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
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf