Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-02

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com> Wed, 03 March 2010 00:05 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@shinkuro.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 193353A8B6B; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 16:05:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.968
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.968 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.631, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5uWKjuCILNvg; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 16:05:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53FC73A6D3F; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 16:05:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from crankycanuck.ca (external.shinkuro.com [66.92.164.104]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5CF801ECBC22; Wed, 3 Mar 2010 00:05:11 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 19:05:09 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>
To: Samuel Weiler <weiler@watson.org>
Message-ID: <20100303000509.GR2901@shinkuro.com>
References: <9abf48a61003021143p6cef437fxb72fe0c3a58a684c@mail.gmail.com> <20100302203103.GJ2901@shinkuro.com> <6c9fcc2a1003021242p16379b6ai6d87f6cf497b37cb@mail.gmail.com> <20100302231204.GM2901@shinkuro.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1003021836230.46887@fledge.watson.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1003021836230.46887@fledge.watson.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Cc: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation.all@tools.ietf.org, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-02
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 00:05:13 -0000

On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 06:46:03PM -0500, Samuel Weiler wrote:
> were defined on the standards track.  I proposed some text for the 
> registry-fixes doc to resolve that, and I suggest repeating it here:
>
> "Unless specified in a Standards Track RFC, new algorithms will have a  
> requirements status of OPTIONAL.  Only a Standards Track RFC may set or 
> change a requirements status of ENCOURAGED or MANDATORY."

The -02 version of registry-fixes says

   The requirement status for all new algorithms will be DISCRETIONARY
   unless a Standards Track document changes that (possibly including
   the Standards Track document defining the algorithm).  Only a
   Standards Track document may make an algorithm ENCOURAGED or
   MANDATORY or remove the MANDATORY or ENCOURAGED designation (to
   DISCOURAGED or OBSOLETE for example).

There is no reference from the current (alg-allocation) document to
the registry-fixes doc because we were trying, very hard, to keep each
document specific and focussed.

Does that help?

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.