On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 3:57 PM Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2025, at 12:26, Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > (wearing no hats and perhaps less common sense) > > > > One thing I've not seen mentioned in this discussion on IETF standards > track documents is Implementations and Interoperability. > > I am sure everyone will say "of course we won't take something to SHOULD > or RECOMMENDED without implementations and interop testing" > > but I feel we should speak to that. > > How? We tried that a few decades ago in IPsec and failed spectacularly to > come to consensus. (I say this as someone in a similar position to you with > the same desires.) > > I'm not sure how to get to that consensus either, the conversation just felt like that part was not being talked about. For example, I could develop some sketchy nationalistic crypto algorithm "SHA-2", and receive a code point, and perhaps produce a working implementation. But I also hope that if I attempted to make my algorithm standards track, implementers would speak out against such a proposal. tim >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
