Hi Philip,
See [ST] below.
On 1/16/25, 8:30 AM, "Philip Homburg" <pch-b6cafa...@u-1.phicoh.com on behalf
of pch-dnso...@u-1.phicoh.com> wrote:
> b) Is step 3b (a short RFC that points to a specific version of an
> expired draft) acceptable? If not, what would be needed, given that
> the original author didn't want to progress their document?
When it comes to using a cryptographic algorithm in DNSSEC there are two
parts
in the specification. The first is a general description of the
cryptographic algorithm that applies to all contexts not just DNSSEC.
The second is how the algorithm should be used in DNSSEC. Something about
parameters and encoding of inputs and results.
We can assume that cryptographic algorithms will be developed outside the
IETF and that by the time we make such an algorithm a SHOULD or RECOMMENDED
a
stable reference will be avaliable. So the thing the IETF needs to add is
the second part.
So I think the requirement is obvious. If a cryptographic algorithm is to be
listed as SHOULD or RECOMMENDED then a standard track specification of the
second part is required.
That means that if the code point was allocated based on a draft then a new
draft that is intended for standards track needs to be created that copies
the
relevant material of the original draft. That provides a stable reference
and gives room for review. It is very important to check that the new
draft contains test vectors. Of course the new draft can immediately list
the algorithm as SHOULD or RECOMMENDED.
What I do not know, can a draft request IANA to update the reference for a
previously allocated code point?
[ST] For 'bis' documents, we typically expect them to replace references to
obsoleted documents, but the IANA Considerations section needs to tell us
whether or not we should proceed with such updates. The IANA Considerations
section can also tell us to replace references to any RFC or I-D, and we will
do so once the IESG approves the document. If the existing reference points to
a person rather than a document, we would check with that individual to confirm
that they're OK with the change.
The IC section can also tell us to list it as an additional reference rather
than replacing the existing one. However, if the obsoleted document serves as
the current reference, it’s generally expected that the original reference
would be replaced rather than add to it.
Hope this helps. If you have any other questions, you can also reach us at
i...@iana.org.
Best regards,
Sabrina
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
