Re: [dnsext] Publication request: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-07

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com> Thu, 14 April 2011 14:44 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@shinkuro.com>
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BDC6E0699 for <dnsext@ietfc.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:44:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.619
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BXFL0WvzM1hJ for <dnsext@ietfc.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:44:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BADDFE066B for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:44:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shinkuro.com (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 14BA01ECB420 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:44:39 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:44:37 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>
To: dnsext@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20110414144437.GJ24471@crankycanuck.ca>
References: <20110413151934.GL24471@shinkuro.com> <201104132344.p3DNih4v013997@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <0560E4CC-35C9-4B32-A5E4-669B7B08D559@vpnc.org> <201104140155.p3E1t4ho014811@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <20110414125527.GE24471@crankycanuck.ca> <F88155D3-70BA-47BD-B4D5-3DFD1D4E5F8B@vpnc.org> <201104141354.p3EDsvxv007218@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <67512BC5-5329-4AF9-84A5-7889C25DF9A7@hopcount.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <67512BC5-5329-4AF9-84A5-7889C25DF9A7@hopcount.ca>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Publication request: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-07
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:44:40 -0000

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:27:56AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> 
> Why would the registry need to be replaced in the case where we're just adding rows to it?

It doesn't.  Anything that just adds a row to the registry, without
adding anything to the column indicating rules about this document,
can just work as it ever did.

If, however, you wanted to create an entry that said, "The document
_x_ says that this algorithm is mandatory to implement," then you'd
have to replace the registry with a new one.  That's because the
column is a place to state non-optional requirements for conformance
with _this_ document.  The document can't be changed after it is
published.  So you'd need a new document, with a new and different
column.  That would be standards action, and I'd expect the WG to say
"replace the registry" rather than "add yet another column".

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.