(Eric V, some of this is to keep you apprised as the Responsible AD) During the DNSOP chairs call, myself, Suzanne, Benno, AD Warren and Author Warren discussed this requirement. After much discussion, we came to two points we agree on:
- We DO want to make it easy for people to create and experiment with new DNSSEC algorithm ideas, including code points. - We DO NOT want to make it easy for people to use those code points to force implementers to support these same DNSSEC algorithm ideas. We feel these points align with the feedback of the working group (I am always happy to be proven wrong). I will add all this to the shepherds write up. thanks tim On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 11:47 AM Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > Paul > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 5:30 PM Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> > wrote: > >> On Jan 23, 2025, at 12:22, Tim Wicinski via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> >> wrote: >> > >> > Tim Wicinski has requested publication of >> draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis-03 as Informational on behalf of the DNSOP >> working group. >> >> I am disappointed that the discussion of changing the requirements for >> MAY-level additions able to be Internet Drafts was ignored in this >> decision. I will bring this up again during IETF Last Call. >> >> > This seems perfectly reasonable. I wrote some text in the shepherd > writeup to discuss this but it's not in the version I uploaded to the > datatracker. > Eric, I'll sort this out today/tomorrow. > > tim > > > --Paul Hoffman >> >>
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
