Subject: Re: [dnsext] IANA considerations in the RSA-SHA2 draft

From: Alfred Hönes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:41:06 +0100 (MEZ)

At Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:10:02 -0400 , Michael StJohns wrote:

> At 02:15 PM 3/12/2009, Alfred Hönes wrote:
>
>> Therefore, with respect to the title of the draft, I regard any
>> statement on the applicability of the newly specified DNSSEC
>> algorithms to TSIG as out-of-scope for this draft.
>> Related considerations should be left to a future independent
>> specification, which naturally could make a normative reference
>> to this document, if desired.
>
> I think Ed was making a specific statement about the expected
> response from IANA for the registry and I think he's correct.
> Simply leaving the column empty (or in the case of the document,
> omitting it) looks like it was just overlooked in the document.
>
> I'd suggest making an explicit entry in the table of "*" for the
> transaction security column and have a related footnote (for the
> table) that "*" means "There has been no determination of
> standardization of the use of this algorithm with transaction
> security" or something along those lines.  This completes the
> table AND provides an explanation for while the column isn't
> Y or N which should make IANA happy.
>
> Mike.

I agree.  That's reasonable.

My hope was that IANA might be able to go back to what they had done
for RFC 4034, but holding the clerical pencil will be on the safe
side.   :-)

I also agree with Edward Lewis that this work has priority now,
but a cleanup/facelifting effort for the IANA registry should be
undertaken as soon as cycles are available to do so.

  Alfred.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>