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

Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> Thu, 14 April 2011 14:28 UTC

Return-Path: <jabley@hopcount.ca>
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 414ABE06C2 for <dnsext@ietfc.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:28:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R4nj5YjuBouY for <dnsext@ietfc.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:28:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from monster.hopcount.ca (monster.hopcount.ca [IPv6:2001:4900:1:392:213:20ff:fe1b:3bfe]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B203BE069F for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:28:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [2001:4900:1042:100:5a55:caff:feec:96bf] (helo=krill.hopcount.ca) by monster.hopcount.ca with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.74 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <jabley@hopcount.ca>) id 1QANWW-0006bn-Ky; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:27:57 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <201104141354.p3EDsvxv007218@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:27:56 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <67512BC5-5329-4AF9-84A5-7889C25DF9A7@hopcount.ca>
References: <20110413151934.GL24471@shinkuro.com> <201104132344.p3DNih4v013997@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <0560E4CC-35C9-4B32-A5E4-669B7B08D559@vpnc.org> <201104140155.p3E1t4ho014811@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <20110414125527.GE24471@crankycanuck.ca> <F88155D3-70BA-47BD-B4D5-3DFD1D4E5F8B@vpnc.org> <201104141354.p3EDsvxv007218@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:4900:1042:100:5a55:caff:feec:96bf
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: jabley@hopcount.ca
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on monster.hopcount.ca); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Cc: dnsext-ads@tools.ietf.org, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Publication request: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-07
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: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:28:09 -0000

On 2011-04-14, at 09:54, Thomas Narten wrote:

> 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.

I don't understand this point -- why would a subsequent document not be able to update the registry on its own merits, e.g. for the purposes of documenting implementation requirements for new algorithms?

Why would the registry need to be replaced in the case where we're just adding rows to it?


Joe