Applicability Statement: DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm IANA Registry
draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-08

[Ballot discuss]
I think that keeping compliance information in an IANA registry is a bad idea. A solution on the lines of what Robert proposes in his DISCUSS would solve the issue and I support it. I am entering however a DISCUSS and not a COMMENT with the purpose of turning it into an ABSTAIN if the decision is to go ahead on the current path, or clearing if some variant of Robert's proposal is accepted.

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-08.txt and has
the following comments:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, a single IANA
action is required to be completed.

The Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm Numbers registry,
located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers/dns-sec-alg-numbers.xml

is to be completely replaced.

IANA will use the contents of Section 2.2 of the approved document to
completely replace the existing registry.

In the column "Compliance to RFC TBD", "RFC TBD" should be changed to [
RFC-to-be ] when published.

Section 2.3 provides the instructions for adding and updating entries in
this registry and will be noted in the new registry.

IANA understands that this is the only action required upon document
approval.

[Ballot comment]
I support Robert's discuss and his proposed solution looks to me like
it'd work if the WG has not got a reason why its a bad plan.

[Ballot discuss]
I concur with the concerns raised by Pete Resnick and consider the solution proposed by Robert Sparks to be a reasonable path forward. I would go farther and suggest that there is no need at all for an IANA registry, simply an RFC that lists the most up-to-date recommendations. Obsolete it when the recommendations change and it will be clear to those who implement and deploy DNSSEC which algorithms are appropriate at any given time.

[Ballot discuss]
The Gen-ART Review by Alexey Melnikov on 5-June-2011 raised some
  points that deserve a response.  I have not seen a response yet.

  Feel free to respond to all of the points raised by Alexey.  I have
  constructed these questions based on Alexey's review:

  (1) Looking at the difference between this document and the IANA
      registry , I can see that they have different
      list of RFC numbers in the right column. Is this intentional?
      Is the list in this document correct?

  (2) As somebody else already pointed out during the IETF Last Call
      the range 123-251 is Reserved by RFC 6014, but this reservation
      is not mentioned in this document.  Why not?

  (3) Section 2.3 requires the replacement of the whole table.  It seems
      like overkill to replace the whole table every time a change to a
      single algorithm implementation status is needed.  This practice
      could result in mistakes and lead to exactly the kind of trouble
      that this document demonstrates.  Why is this the best approach for
      this IANA table?

[Ballot discuss]
Would the following approach achieve the goals the working group desires with this document?

Instead of keeping the Compliance information in the IANA registry as a new column, keep it entirely within this RFC. Add a sentence to the registry that says "See RFCXXXX for the IETF Consensus on which subset of these algorithms are required or recommended to implement or avoid."

The RFC could then say that any changes to the RFC affecting that column should be done through obsoleting the RFC, replacing it with a new one.  That way, you would have a single document to refer to for conformance purposes, and a clear history of what changes were made. This would avoid Pete's concerns with the potential unintended consequences of the new proposed mechanics for maintaining the registry. It would also avoid an issue I have with the sentence that tries to constrain any updates to this RFC to _only_ use the obsoletes mechanism. It allows the working group to maintain any changes by only using a series of obsoletes, and guides future maintainers should the working group go away.  As long as the consensus was to only use obsoletes, that's exactly what will happen. If IETF consensus changes in the future, it would override any attempt to constrain the document maintenance anyway.

If a path like this was considered and rejected, documenting what it wouldn't achieve would help motivate the current proposal.

[Ballot comment]
Comments I made to the WG regarding the references to "Reserved until 2020" and the correction to the unassigned code points the WG has agreed to fix.

[Ballot discuss]
I think the mechanism specified for registry update in section 2.3 is so far out of the norm that it should be reconsidered. In particular, the idea of rewriting the entire registry every time a change to a single entry in the registry occurs seems inappropriate. I fear that, for example, if an entry moves from RECOMMENDED TO IMPLEMENT to MUST IMPLEMENT, the history of how it got to that state will be lost. Futher, I think the RFC that made the algorithm RECOMMENDED TO IMPLEMENT, or MUST IMPLEMENT, or MUST NOT IMPLEMENT should be in the Reference column of the registry. Finally, I think referring to "Compliance" in the registry is wildly outside of IETF norms. Suggested changes:

a) Define the registry such that "Standards Action" (or maybe "IETF Review", i.e., IESG or WG document) is required for changes to the registry.

b) The "Reference" column in the registry must be to a document that defines the requirements level for DNSSec (MUST IMPLEMENT, MUST NOT IMPLEMENT, etc.) in addition to a definition of the algorithm. (They can be the same document, or more than one.)

c) Change the "Compliance to RFC TBD1" column to "Requirements level", which should reflect the contents of the document pointed to in (b).

Then all of this nonsense about rewriting the registry every time can be removed.

[Ballot comment]
I believe that it is useful to the reader if the updating text is included in the documnet abstract.

Perhaps I should clarify that, I mean the list of updated documents.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Applicability Statement: DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm IANA Registry) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG (dnsext) to
consider the following document:
- 'Applicability Statement: DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm IANA
  Registry'
  as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-06-09. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) requires the use of
  cryptographic algorithm suites for generating digital signatures over
  DNS data.  There is currently an IANA registry for these algorithms
  that is incomplete in that it lacks the implementation status of each
  algorithm.  This document provides an applicability statement on
  algorithm implementation compliance status for DNSSEC
  implementations.  This status is to measure compliance to this RFC
  only.  This document replaces that registry table with a new IANA
  registry table for Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm
  Numbers that lists (or assigns) each algorithm's status based on the
  current reference.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Andrew Sullivan. Yes, I believe it is ready.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

The WG has been talking about this draft for some time. I believe it
has had adequate review, but it is a strange document. It is
basically a process document, and I therefore suspect that the only
time it will get the sort of attention it needs on that front is
during IETF-wide review. It should also be reviewed by IANA.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?

The draft uses a novel procedural trick to put something into a
registry that usually isn't in a registry, so I think this will
require careful review by IETF process wonks.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

There are those who have argued that what the document is doing --
putting "implementation levels" into a registry -- is a bad idea.
This appears to have been a minority position.

(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
agree with it?

There have been many WG participants who have been mute on this
document, which might suggest indifference. The documents on which it
is based, however, all had reasonably strong WG consensus, so there is
no concern that there is technical disagreement here.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

The abstract does not mention the RFCs that the draft updates, and it
should do. We presume there will be updates as a result of IETF last
call, and this oversight can be fixed then. There is an obsolete
normative reference, but that is intentional because of the way the
registry is being respecified.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? Are there normative references to documents that
are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
state? If such normative references exist, what is the
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

The references are correct.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

Yes. The document replaces a registry; that is all it does. In some
ways, the entire document is an IANA consideration.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

N/A

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

This memo completely replaces the Domain Name System Security
(DNSSEC) Algorithm Numbers registry. The new registry
includes a field to indicate requirements for compliance to
this memo. At the same time, the registry is adjusted to
include some reservations of values that have been observed
as being in use on the Internet.

Working Group Summary

The Working Group believes that the DNSSEC Algorithm Numbers
registry needs maintenance. This memo is intended to do that.
The memo includes a novel mechanism for specifying whether an
algorithm is "required". The registry includes a field that
indicates whether an algorithm is required, recommended, or
forbidden by this memo, and the memo includes a constraint
that it cannot be updated, only obsoleted. Not everyone
thinks the additional field is a good idea.

Document Quality

This is a process-only document intended to present a clean
and usable registry for IANA; there is no protocol to
implement.