On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 6:33 AM Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> wrote: > On Mon, 21 Mar 2022, Ben Schwartz wrote: > > > This leaves us with several possible options: > > 1. Change the MUST to SHOULD, or otherwise indicate that IANA is not > expected to enforce anything about the contents of the format > > reference. Registrations might appear without a suitable format > reference, resulting in keys that are difficult to parse and > > serialize interoperably (e.g. same zone file produces different results > in different authoritative server implementations). > > 2. Change the registration policy to Expert Review, relying on the > designated expert to enforce this rule. Registrations might be > > processed more slowly. > > 3. Change the registration policy to Specification Required. This is > similar to #2 but incorporates formal guidance about what kinds > > of documents qualify as a "specification" (e.g. must be "permanent and > readily available"). Note that this is not "RFC Required": > > any individual I-D is considered a qualified specification as soon as > it is uploaded to the Datatracker. > > I favour #2, especially as this intersects the DNS protocol with other > protocols, and those requesting SVCB might not be DNS experts. Having > a DNS expert to verify things make sense seems good. Although I would > hope the Expert would also want a Specification Required as their > input. >
Note that Specification Required is a superset of Expert Review: "This policy is the same as Expert Review, with the additional requirement of a formal public specification." ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8126#section-4.6)
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
