> 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@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf