Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> writes: > > My goal here is to help developers, researchers, etc work on new > > ideas without a lot of process. > > I don't mind process for getting beyond "MAY"; in fact, I think it's > our responsibility to do the work in that process.
Speaking with no hats at all (IE, entirely my own opinion): I'm firmly of the opinion that when we have the code space available we should make process easy to get new algorithms in tables to ease initial implementations, testing and early interoperability. Thus, I'd be fine for various levels of the MAY settings in these tables. I'm even more firmly of the opinion, however, that for SHOULDs and MUSTs we absolutely need general industry acceptance of an algorithm that resources SHOULD be committed to. As such, IMHO, we must have an IETF consensus backed RFC that documents cases where SHOULDs and MUSTs are put into thees new columns. Anything else only amounts to confusion by the industry as to what resources should be spent within DNS software owners to ensure wide adoption of algorithms is possible and likely. -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
