At 16:33 -0400 6/1/11, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
I believe that nothing anywhere in the document suggests that one
ought to guage conformance of software against the registry, and if
you think it says that somewhere, I'd like a pointer to where. It
would need to be fixed if it said that, but as far as I can tell it
does not.
I believe the opposite.
From the abstract:
This status is to measure compliance to this RFC
only. This document replaces that registry table with a new IANA
registry table for Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm
Numbers that lists (or assigns) each algorithm's status based on the
current reference.
Seeing these two sentences alone tells me that this document is
setting up a registry and is setting up something to be compliant to
the registry.
Bolstering my confusion is comments from the editor/Scott in a recent
message (granted this is not in the draft):
"This doc doesn't change that at all. You can still implement
whatever you want, just not claim conformance to this doc."
Is the document an applicability statement to which software can
conform, or is it a definition of a registry?
Jumping backwards in your message:
You cannot claim conformance to the registry, because registries are
not an archival series and because they do change. We agree on that.
But you don't seem to think that the registry of RRTYPE code points
changing is a bad idea, even though early software didn't have the
RRTYPE for DNAME or DNSKEY. In the same way, the registry of these
Why did you use the word "but" in there? I can't make sense out of
that paragraph, especially the second sentence.
Change happens, and the registry has to keep up to be relevant. A
software version is written to a static set of requirements (like an
RFC). Software (referring to the process of producing a series of
versions) can be said to be compliant to a registry in the sense that
the latest version reflects what is in a registry.
That might give a hint of why I find this draft's mission confusing.
And why I really think it is a bad idea to codify recommendations to
implement in a registry, which is what I read in this document.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
NeuStar You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468
Now, don't say I'm always complaining.
Wait, that's a complaint, isn't it?
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf