On 18/03/2010 12:31 PM, 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.
-- Christian Huitema
But the document requires an RFC to change the 'requirements level', but
it can be done in more fine grain level than republishing the whole
registry, and the RFC can dictate changes to the registry in the future.
Well here a proposed problem statement for the requirement:
How does an implementer of a protocol X, find which ones of the many
features listed in registry Y, he/she needs to implement and which
ones are obsolete.
and
How does an "evaluator" of an implementations assess if
implementation Z is compliant with current recommended state
of protocol X.
The second problem my draft is addressing is:
How to express the implementation and operational level of support.
RFC2119 words only apply to IMPLEMENTATIONS.
As how things have been done I think that process is broken thus I want
people to figure out a better way to provide this information.
In my mind there are two options:
a) add this to the registry as this is relevant information for anyone
that cares about doing the right thing.
b) Add a reference to the registry to a location to a SINGLE RFC that
lists the compliance levels.
I'm big on the SINGLE argument, allowing multiple will cause a mess that
looks like spaghetti code.
The proposal is a change as what is the role of registries, but
that is not a good enough reason to reject this approach.
The question is how do we make the system more user friendly, remember
we have over 5700 RFC's published so far and we are generating almost
an RFC/day. It is not unlikely that we will have RFC 9000
published before 2020!
Olafur
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf