Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Call for Adoption: draft-belyavskiy-rfc5933-bis

[Tim Wicinski <[e-mail]>]

All

I've been going over the CfA comments, and discussing this with my chairs
and Warren, and
perhaps the best way to walk through the logic in our decision is to work
backwards.


The authors are requesting a code point for their algorithm in this IANA
registry:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types/ds-rr-types.xhtml#ds-rr-types-1

To receive such a code point a "Standards Action", which is defined as:

    For the Standards Action policy, values are assigned only through
    Standards Track or Best Current Practice RFCs in the IETF Stream.

Which means that 1) Informational will not work; and 2) Independent Stream
will not work.

In the excellent discussion on this, what seems to be the underlying
consensus is
the need to publish the document to establish the code point, and document
it as such.

To not adopt this means, the implementers could easily pick their own
There was also discussion on updating the table in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8624#page-5
(implementation recommendations for DNSKEY algorithms), and here seemed to
be some consensus around MAY


There was also an orthogonal discussion around changing the registry from
"Standards Action"
to "RFC Required".  While this seems to be a simple procedural move, I fear
that doing
so haphazardly without understanding the operational considerations is
completely
wrong (Remember, We are DNS OPerations)

Mr. Wouters made the very correct comment that "no one outside the IETF
really knows the difference for RFCs anyway."
This was something I was reminded of all too well during the DNS RPZ
discussions.

Summary:  Adopt as Standards Track because we have to add text to the state
as such.  We will not spend a lot
of WG time on this document, and Warren and I will end up doing the heavy
lifting on all the process portions.

thanks
tim

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 6:42 PM Wes Hardaker <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]> writes:
>
> > If the WG wants, this short draft could be a WG document.
>
> Yes please.
> --
> Wes Hardaker
> USC/ISI
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>