All Authors have produced a new version which we feel addresses Paul H’s comments on “MAY” and a few other changes.
Id like the working group to take a look at the update. I’m heading back home tonight so will have more to say tomorrow Tim Sent from my iPhone On Jan 29, 2025, at 13:53, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> wrote: On Jan 29, 2025, at 10:23, Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. I'm hoping that "we" in those two sentences are "we the WG", not "we the WG chairs". But even in that case, it does not match the outcome of the WG discussion on this point. No one felt that any code point listed as "MAY" could be used to "force implementers to support" the algorithm; the entire point of MAY in that column is to differentiate from RECOMMENDED and MUST. > We feel these points align with the feedback of the working group (I am > always happy to be proven wrong). I have looked at the thread again, and I still believe you are wrong. There was a lot of support for allowing easier access to get initial code points as long as they had to later ask the IETF for upgrading. Also, the thread had nothing to do with "experimenting": there are already code points for private use. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
