On May 31, 2011, at 4:12 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 06:53:38PM -0500, Pete Resnick wrote:
>
>>> 2.1. Updates and Additions
>>>
>>> This document updates three entries in the Domain Name System
>>> Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm Registry. They are:
>>>
>>> The description for assignment number 4 is changed to "Reserved until
>>> 2020".
>>>
>>> The description for assignment number 9 is changed to "Reserved until
>>> 2020".
>>>
>>> The description for assignment number 11 is changed to "Reserved
>>> until 2020".
>>
>> OK, I give up....What happens in the year 2020? The end of the Mayan
>> calendar? Another prediction of the coming apocalypse? Oprah will
>> return?
>>
>> Without the jokes: I find "due dates" in standards completely
>> ridiculous, without any purpose, and object strongly to them. I
>> cannot see what the dates add to the reservation of these code
>> points, and there is no explanation of dates (let alone these
>> *particular* dates) in the draft. These either need to be explained
>> in excruciating detail or removed.
>
> These are all typecodes that have "leaked".
>
> In the case of 4, it was "reserved for elliptic curve" but it is clear
> that there may be more than one elliptic curve algorithm and we can't
> be sure which curve might be being tested with this.
>
> In the case of 9 and 11, it was due to a keen implementer of SHA2.
> The SHA2 specification originally left WGLC with two numbers for each
> of SHA256 and SHA512. This was to "alias" NSEC vs. NSEC3 (see how
> SHA1 is handled). After WGLC, some WG participants objected
> vociferously, and it became clear that WG consensus was against such
> aliasing. But one implementation had already shipped with the four
> assignments in place.
>
> We picked 2020 as a time by which we figured any software using any of
> this would have to have been updated. My personal preference would
> have been to specify that the four code points were all reserved until
> all other code points were used, but that seemed too complicated a
> rule so we picked 2020.
It sounds like Pete is saying "picking 2020 is complicated", so maybe the
original idea ("until all other code points are used") is better.
> Why do you think this all needs to be outlined in the draft? Why do
> such rules (which are, after all, just destined for a registry) need
> to be given a rationale?
So that someone evaluating the document can understand the rationale for the
decision points in the document. Switching to "until all other code points are
used" is self-explaining.
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
