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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 8:38 AM Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Jun 18, 2020, at 9:20 PM, Martin Thomson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020, at 01:30, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> >> It might be better, and faster, for this WG to adopt a one-paragraph
> >> draft that makes the DS registry "RFC required", like the other
> >> DNSSEC-related registries.
> >
> > I think you mean "Specification Required".
>
> I do not.
>
> >  RFC required has the same net effect, but the side effect being that
> you burden the ISE with these requests.
>
> "RFC required" forces the specification to be stable enough for the ISE
> (or the IESG, for individual submissions) to approve publication. Using
> "specification required" means that someone can write an Internet Draft,
> get the code point, then realize that their draft was wrong due to lack of
> community review. The result is either:
> - Two code points for similarly-named algorithms
>

Sure. This seems not that desirable, but given that these algorithms are
more or less by definition ones in which there is not that wide interest,
not that big a deal.


- A code point whose definition is a moving target
>

I agree that this is undesirable. The registrations should be tied to a
single fixed draft version.



> Using "RFC required" is not perfect (due to errata and RFC updates), but
> it does mean that there is at least some community review before the code
> point is allocated.
>

What's your reasoning for why there needs to be community review before
there is a code point assigned? Would that still apply if the space were
larger?


-Ekr