Re: [dnsext] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-08.txt> (Applicability Statement: DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm IANA Registry) to Proposed Standard

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Tue, 31 May 2011 17:54 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46EB3E06D9; Tue, 31 May 2011 10:54:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.456
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.456 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.143, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PnxujNdNXsU7; Tue, 31 May 2011 10:54:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90FD0E06C0; Tue, 31 May 2011 10:54:17 -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 A81961ECB41C; Tue, 31 May 2011 17:54:15 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 13:54:14 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org, dnsext@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20110531175413.GI25706@shinkuro.com>
References: <20110526152257.21795.30012.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4DE42E02.8070706@qualcomm.com> <20110531111207.GB25706@shinkuro.com> <7212D562-D16F-42C3-96F0-5B91CE8C50F9@vpnc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7212D562-D16F-42C3-96F0-5B91CE8C50F9@vpnc.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-08.txt> (Applicability Statement: DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm IANA Registry) to Proposed Standard
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: Tue, 31 May 2011 17:54:18 -0000

On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 07:42:28AM -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote:
 
> It sounds like Pete is saying "picking 2020 is complicated", so
> maybe the original idea ("until all other code points are used") is
> better.
> 
> > Why do you think this all needs to be outlined in the draft?  Why do
> > such rules (which are, after all, just destined for a registry) need
> > to be given a rationale?  
> 
> So that someone evaluating the document can understand the rationale
> for the decision points in the document. Switching to "until all
> other code points are used" is self-explaining.

In that case, I think the right answer is to do something along the
following lines:

    1.  Alter the relevant passage in section 2.1 as follows:

        The description for assignment number 4 is changed to "Reserved".

        The description for assignment number 9 is changed to "Reserved".

        The description for assignment number 11 is changed to "Reserved".

    2.  Alter the new registry table in the same way.

    3.  Add a subsection 2.4, "Rationale for reserving assignments 4,
        9, and 11", as follows:

        Assignment numbers 4, 9, and 11 are believed to have been used
        in software released on the Internet prior to the publication of this
        memo, which is why they are hereby reserved.  The assignments
        were never requested of nor made by IANA.

The point of (3) is to make the reasoning clear and to make it clear
to future IETF participants that they could plausibly reuse those code
points after sufficient time had passed.  (We have a problem in the
DNS of much of the reasoning being contained in our oral tradition,
and I'd like to break that cycle.)

How's that sound?

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com