Re: [dnsext] WGLC on draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-signal-05

Okay, I admit that this is a derailment attempt.

This document started out as an effort to negotiate what information 
was sent in a DNS message exchange.  The document now describes a 
means for a querier to signal something about its capability.

Sitting around the venue and gabbing, what if we expand on this?  Why 
limit the capability advertisement to just DNSSEC algorithms.  An 
idea that was floated was to represent the RFCs the querier complies 
with (ohh, that "c" word).  Further expanding on this, conformance 
with a general (i.e., not-an-RFC) document could be done via a 
reference in some new IANA document registry.

Compliance - this would require a means to, in a binary way, define 
compliance with an RFC.  That would take some ground breaking work.

These comments aren't meant to stop the current document processing 
bureaucracy from proceeding but offered as food for thought.  It it 
foreseeable that in 10-15 years we will have lots of things change in 
the DNS.  We know that we lack any version management capability (the 
RFC that defined SHA256 for DS hashes mentions this).  Although it 
will be an eon before we have one, we have to start somewhere.  And 
maybe the current document, such as it is, is the first step.  But in 
talking to people here this week, we could expand the idea.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468

2012...time to reuse those 1984 calendars!
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext