IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 19 June 2020 18:39 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4E733A0CD8 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 11:39:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.851
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=XNtP/hM8; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=b7Axav5X
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 45Hd-jOlngM7 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 11:39:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED9103A0AA2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 11:39:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 57288 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2020 18:39:14 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=dfc5.5eed0652.k2006; bh=6OChj3myzSHk09DZ6AHOqqueuDZ73DGvVmEHFOqaVIA=; b=XNtP/hM8QFVjNJuN1I0Jpx+CWhFteUGhnzdfjE/CUGvFlnFrtCRX30BAOy0nFE97q0s+O4NTHTS+OXBeBlyRKpsdSPbSenOt/cxck5NDIxvQeaS9wS1gM33v0s0I0e27lGiZF5A5YaKjWF5nR/k+Zoz7G9n17pF/c3yT1QczVbiSwtKB8EqL75o75gG/ooALhktQp6KBI+L54NrFFbkkwZHbQoyztJrp/Y+Qnn4Z30zI5P8g5gBDNZgp65i2WhNQ
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=dfc5.5eed0652.k2006; bh=6OChj3myzSHk09DZ6AHOqqueuDZ73DGvVmEHFOqaVIA=; b=b7Axav5Xn8fKLDCCwC18mQXomPr/2te22UofDfhdpjaISd7shM1eE1mVFXNMotEd512Bfjo4P4zOLOBnCPf67w1Rg+tO2Wafte8nfzcszxvgA6RpeEVaSCrkbSeXOxbNzdFfidtLBFuhmWbLwOgQyicHdvnn2rtO0z0UCDWrzBgwA3dO72KtfXd3D3a/K1u1OYe6XdwS+KNy8nIRbsJPYDQ+7CepzUg5dN6m6n515vJFCtd5SalVa9twrSIxCknX
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 19 Jun 2020 18:39:14 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id BC2B61B36D16; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 14:39:14 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2020 14:39:14 -0400
Message-Id: <20200619183914.BC2B61B36D16@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Cc: ekr@rtfm.com
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBNT9Wf2HxLDHR=tLod4YVgF-E=uaU7+=9nGLk=01gDOXg@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/JvdZILsVc6Nsz6_goJWJJjiooBc>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Call for Adoption: draft-belyavskiy-rfc5933-bis
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2020 18:39:18 -0000

In article <CABcZeBNT9Wf2HxLDHR=tLod4YVgF-E=uaU7+=9nGLk=01gDOXg@mail.gmail.com> you write:
>> Yes. Leveraging the fact that the IETF community is in fact a community
>> seems worth the effort to have the references in registries be useful to a
>> new developer a decade in the future.
>
>OK. In that case you and I disagree.
>
>My reasoning is that (as above) these algorithms are generally of low
>interest and that requiring community review for code point registration
>has the result of consuming quite scarce resources in the service of making
>the algorithms which are being registered marginally clearer. ...

Sounds like expert review would be more appropriate, so only one
person has to spend cycles deciding whether the spec looks plausible.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email