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

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

The philosophical / operational tussle here is whether the definitive list of crypto algorithms and their implementation requirements should be kept in:

a) an IANA registry for the growing list of algorithms, and a single RFC for the implementation requirements

b) an IANA registry for the growing list of algorithms, and a set of loosely coupled RFCs for the implementation requirements

c) an IANA registry for a growing list of algorithms that is tied to a single RFC for the implementation requirements

Some WGs have gone with (a), and some with with (b). The current draft proposes (c) for this protocol. It is a modification of the idea in (a), and it gives the implementer less chance of getting it wrong because they will find the exact same set of implementation requirements in "the" RFC and the IANA registry.

To me, this is different and a bit weird, but could make sense for getting better interoperability because of better understanding on the part of developers. It seems worth a try and, if it turns out to be more confusing than (a) or (b), the WG can drop back to one of them.

--Paul Hoffman