SM wrote: > > One of the effects > of this proposal is that the programmer will be complying with the > IANA registry to cherry pick which protocol or algorithm to implement. I don't understand what you mean by "implementing an IANA registry". I do understand the idea of implementing an RFC, and for this purpose, RFCs are supposed to attribute "requirements" levels to implementation options/alternatives and to optional features. Although there are some RFCs (PKIX documents come to mind) that label myriads of bells and whistles as "requirements", so that they provide little clue about which features are likely available in implementations within the installed base. Normally, RFCs contain requirements for _implementations_, leaving the decision about what features to actually use entirely to the consumers of the technology. For DNSsec, when it is deployed on the internet, there also ought to be a set of requirements for the DNSsec zones for the purpose of interoperability, because DNS is, and DNSsec should be at some point in the future, an integral part of the internet. -Martin _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf