Subject: IANA registry issue

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 17:24:00 -0400

Attemping protocol=4 is made hard by this in the IANA considerations 
of the -records document:

    KEY Protocol Values: [RFC2535] created an IANA Registry for KEY
       Protocol Values, but [RFC3445] re-assigned all values other than 3
       to reserved and closed this IANA registry.  The registry remains
       closed, and all KEY and DNSKEY records are required to have
       Protocol Octet value of 3.

PS - namedroppers seems awfully quiet this afternoon... ;)
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                            +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

"I can't go to Miami.  I'm expecting calls from telemarketers." -
Grandpa Simpson.

--
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/>

---

From: David Blacka <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 18:18:03 -0400

>        Protocol Octet value of 3.

I think before we attempt to jump this hurdle, we need to determine if 1) 
signaling DNSSEC-ter in DNSKEY is feasible (so far, looks like to me), and 2) 
desirable.  That is, would using proto=4 or DNSKEY flag bits as a signaling 
mechanism be better than TCR?

Then we can figure out whether or not we wish to revive that IANA registry or 
do something else.

> PS - namedroppers seems awfully quiet this afternoon... ;)

Sorry, man.

-- 
David Blacka    <[email-masked]> 
Sr. Engineer    VeriSign Applied Research

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 22:45:02 +0000

> ... we need to determine if 1) signaling DNSSEC-ter in DNSKEY is
> feasible (so far, looks like to me), and 2) desirable.  That is, would
> using proto=4 or DNSKEY flag bits as a signaling mechanism be better
> than TCR?
> 
> Then we can figure out whether or not we wish to revive that IANA
> registry or do something else.

on the one hand, yes and no.  it's borderline feasible, but not desireable.
(and since this isn't [email-masked], i don't have to explain my reasons.)

on the other hand, the decision as to whether to revive the closed iana
registry for dnssec protocol identifiers can come much later, after the
decision of which transition mechanism is right for bis->ter.

right now all we have to decide is whether there IS a way to go bis->ter;
we don't have to actually select one, and we don't need to reopen an IANA
registry for it.