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