Dear Paul, On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 5:48 PM Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> wrote:
> Why is this WG considering making this document Standards Track instead of > Informational? Also, why is the WG considering putting the document in our > work stream at all? Can the WG can bring much value to the document itself? > We do have lots of other things we are working on. > > There is no procedural need for this document to be part of the DNSOP > working group. In order for this algorithm to get an algorithm number from > IANA, all that is needed is an RFC. National crypto algorithms is one of > the common use cases for the Independent Stream in the RFC Series. > Suggesting that the authors publish it there will take less time for all of > us, will conceivably get it published as an RFC sooner, and fulfills the > requirement for them to get their assignment from IANA. > Unfortunately, Independent Stream is impossible for this document. This document requires updates to 2 IANA registries: Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm Numbers ( https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers/dns-sec-alg-numbers.xhtml ) has the "RFC Required" update policy The 2nd registry Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms ( https://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types/ds-rr-types.xhtml#ds-rr-types-1 ) has the "Standards Action" update policy So it makes impossible to use the Independent Stream process. -- SY, Dmitry Belyavsky
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
