< draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-02.txt		draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-03.txt >
	Network Working Group P. Hoffman		Network Working Group P. Hoffman
	Internet-Draft VPN Consortium		Internet-Draft VPN Consortium
	Updates: 2535, 3755, 4034 January 25, 2010		Updates: 2535, 3755, 4034 March 22, 2010
	(if approved)		(if approved)
	Intended status: Standards Track		Intended status: Standards Track
	Expires: July 29, 2010		Expires: September 23, 2010
	Cryptographic Algorithm Identifier Allocation for DNSSEC		Cryptographic Algorithm Identifier Allocation for DNSSEC
	draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-02		draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-03
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document specifies how DNSSEC cryptographic algorithm		This document specifies how DNSSEC cryptographic algorithm
	identifiers in the IANA registries are allocated. It changes the		identifiers in the IANA registries are allocated. It changes the
	requirement from "standard required" to "RFC required". It does not		requirement from "standard required" to "RFC required". It does not
	change the list of algorithms that are recommended or required for		change the list of algorithms that are recommended or required for
	DNSSEC implementations.		DNSSEC implementations.
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	skipping to change at page 1, line 42 ¶		skipping to change at line 41 ¶
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at		The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.		http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
	The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at		The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.		http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
	This Internet-Draft will expire on July 29, 2010.		This Internet-Draft will expire on September 23, 2010.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 3, line 18 ¶		skipping to change at line 109 ¶
	o Although the size of the registry is restricted (about 250		o Although the size of the registry is restricted (about 250
	entries), new algorithms are proposed infrequently. It could		entries), new algorithms are proposed infrequently. It could
	easily be many decades before there is any reason to consider		easily be many decades before there is any reason to consider
	restricting the registry again.		restricting the registry again.
	Some developers will care about the standards level of the RFCs that		Some developers will care about the standards level of the RFCs that
	are in the registry. The registry should be updated to reflect the		are in the registry. The registry should be updated to reflect the
	current standards level of each algorithm listed.		current standards level of each algorithm listed.
	To address concerns about the registry eventually filling up, the		To address concerns about the registry eventually filling up, the
	IETF SHOULD re-evaluate the requirements for entry into this registry		IETF should re-evaluate the requirements for entry into this registry
	when approximately 120 of the registry entries have been assigned.		when approximately 120 of the registry entries have been assigned.
	That evaluation may lead to tighter restrictions or a new mechanism		That evaluation may lead to tighter restrictions or a new mechanism
	for extending the size of the registry. In order to make this		for extending the size of the registry. In order to make this
	evaluation more likely, IANA is requested to mark about half of the		evaluation more likely, IANA is requested to mark about half of the
	currently-available entries as "Reserved" in order to make the timing		currently-available entries as "Reserved" in order to make the timing
	for that re-evaluation more apparent.		for that re-evaluation more apparent.
	The private-use values, 253 and 254, are still useful for developers		The private-use values, 253 and 254, are still useful for developers
	who want to test, in private, algorithms for which there is no RFC.		who want to test, in private, algorithms for which there is no RFC.
	This document does not change the semantics of those two values.		This document does not change the semantics of those two values.
	skipping to change at page 4, line 16 ¶		skipping to change at line 154 ¶
	4. IANA Considerations		4. IANA Considerations
	This document updates allocation requirements for unassigned values		This document updates allocation requirements for unassigned values
	in the "Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm Numbers"		in the "Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm Numbers"
	registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/		registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/
	dns-sec-alg-numbers/dns-sec-alg-numbers.xhtml, in the sub-registry		dns-sec-alg-numbers/dns-sec-alg-numbers.xhtml, in the sub-registry
	titled "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers". The registration procedure		titled "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers". The registration procedure
	for values that are assigned after this document is published is "RFC		for values that are assigned after this document is published is "RFC
	Required".		Required".
	IANA is requested to mark values 123 through 250 as "Reserved".		IANA is requested to mark values 123 through 251 as "Reserved". The
			registry should note that this reservation is made in [[ THIS RFC ]]]
			so that when most of the unreserved values are taken, the future IANA
			and users will have an easy pointer to where the reservation
			originated and its purpose.
	IANA is requested to add a textual notation to the "References"		IANA is requested to add a textual notation to the "References"
	column in the registry that gives the current standards status for		column in the registry that gives the current standards status for
	each RFC that is listed in the registry.		each RFC that is listed in the registry.
	5. Security Considerations		5. Security Considerations
	An algorithm described in an RFC that is not on the Standards Track		An algorithm described in an RFC that is not on the Standards Track
	may have weaker security than one that is on the Standards Track; in		may have weaker security than one that is on the Standards Track; in
	fact, that may be the reason that the algorithm was not allowed on		fact, that may be the reason that the algorithm was not allowed on
	skipping to change at page 6, line 26 ¶		skipping to change at line 258 ¶
	In the expectations for implementers, added "This document does not		In the expectations for implementers, added "This document does not
	change the requirements for when an algorithm because mandatory to		change the requirements for when an algorithm because mandatory to
	implement. Such requirements should come in a separate, focused		implement. Such requirements should come in a separate, focused
	document."		document."
	B.4. Differences between draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-01 and		B.4. Differences between draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-01 and
	draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-02		draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-02
	Reworded the first bullet in Section 2 to remove "government".		Reworded the first bullet in Section 2 to remove "government".
			B.5. Differences between draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-02 and
			draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-03
			Changed "SHOULD" to "should" in section 2.
			In section 4, changed the range of "resevered" codes from "123
			through 250" to "123 through 251".
			Added to the IANA Considerations: "The registry should note that this
			reservation is made in [[ THIS RFC ]]] so that when most of the
			unreserved values are taken, the future IANA and users will have an
			easy pointer to where the reservation originated and its purpose."
	Author's Address		Author's Address
	Paul Hoffman		Paul Hoffman
	VPN Consortium		VPN Consortium
	Email: paul.hoffman@vpnc.org		Email: paul.hoffman@vpnc.org
End of changes. 7 change blocks.
	6 lines changed or deleted		23 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/