> On 18 Jun 2020, at 16:01, Joe Abley <jab...@hopcount.ca> wrote: > > On Jun 18, 2020, at 16:48, 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. > > I think the question of the value the wg can bring is the important one.
I think we’re over-thinking this. Just issue new code point(s) for the new algorithm(s) and be done with it. IMO there’s no need for the WG or the IETF to make any statements about the suitability of the underlying crypto used for optional signing and validation. That’s largely a matter for those who use these algorithms. Higher-level concerns about the crypto’s suitability should only come into play whenever an algorithm is a MUST/SHOULD recommendation in a standards-track RFC. Maybe we need an RFC6895-like process for maintaining this IANA registry, like we have for RRtype codes? _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
