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

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

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
[e-mail]
Shinkuro, Inc.