Re: Last Call: draft-ogud-iana-protocol-maintenance-words

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]