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

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

On Apr 14, 2011, at 6:54 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:

>> c) an IANA registry for a growing list of algorithms that is tied to
>> a single RFC for the implementation requirements
> 
> And I have to wonder why we even need a registry, when the contents of
> the registry are effectively kept in a single RFC, with some types of
> updates to the registry effectively requiring reissuing the RFC and
> replacing the entire IANA registry.

Because we have trained a large subset of developers to go to the IANA registry. We have trained only a very small number of developers to be able to correctly find the *one* *current* RFC that has the implementation requirements (where both "one" and "current" are difficult for typical developers). This proposes an expedient that has a chance for higher success.

>> 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.
> 
> I think we are deceiving ourselves if we think putting the compliance
> info into the IANA registry will make any difference at all.
> 
> The important thing is to have the requirements in one place, where
> they are easily findable by anyone who has even a small amount of
> clue. If implementors won't find them in a BCP IETF document, I
> suspect there is very little we can do to make things easier for them.
> 
> And implementors will implement what is in RFPs and the like, and they
> will point to the RFC stating the requirements, not the IANA registry.

We should be able to evaluate the success of this idea within a few years to see if you are right.

>> 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.
> 
> To me, the work to be done is the same: layout the implementation
> recommendations in a BCP RFC. I don't see much value in putting that
> info into the IANA registry itself, and I very much dislike the idea
> of trying to have the IANA registry be where implementation
> recommendations are captured. It seems like the wrong mechanism to
> bring about a particular result.


I can see both arguments, and have made both on this list in the past. :-)

--Paul Hoffman