[dnsext] Follow up on draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

Dear colleagues,

Some time ago, we sent draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-08 to
the IESG.  The consensus on that draft was pretty rough anyway, but
when it got to the IESG there was some very strong opposition.

You may recall that the point of the draft was twofold: to update the
current regstry, and to find one place in which to indicate what
algorithms need to be implemented to maximise interoperability.  (This
was all due to advice we got at one of the IETF meetings some time
ago.)  Objections centred on using a registry to reflect the latter
sort of data, because one cannot conform to a registry but only an
RFC.  While the registry did not actually specify conformance data,
readers pointed out that merely including such in the registry seemed
to head down that road.  

The solution to this has been to break the document in two and treat
the two problems separately.  To that end, Scott Rose (whose patience
with this I must commend) has produced
draft-srose-dnssec-registry-update-00 and
draft-srose-dnssec-algo-imp-status-00.

I would like to ask the WG to review those documents.  I would
especially like to ask those who objected to
draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-08 to review those documents.
If we receive adequate review and, in particular, if we receive
reviews from those previous objectors saying that these new documents
meet their previous objections, then we'll send these along to the
IESG in fulfullment of the charter item, "DNSKEY Registry fixes and
allocation procedure advanced to IESG" (which is marked as done but
which was undone by the rejection of the document).

Thanks, and many happy returns for 2012.

Best regards,

Andrew

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]