I agree with Paul that #2 seems to be best, with the expert being able to enforce a certain level of specification depending on the parameter being allocated.
Tommy > On Mar 21, 2022, at 3:32 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. > > Paul > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
