Re: evaluation:draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-2535typecode-change-04.txt

[hardie@qualcomm.com]

It was pretty clear that the choice not to re-register the others
was deliberate; that's why it seemed strange to re-use the name
of the registry.
			regards,
				Ted


At 6:21 PM -0400 08/20/2003, Rob Austein wrote:
> At Wed, 20 Aug 2003 14:41:28 -0700, Ted Hardie wrote:
> >  Given the care to avoid collisions, it seems a bit odd to reuse the
> >  same name for the  IANA registry, and I'd suggest making some
> >  change to the name.  Given that the old registry has some values
> >  (0,1, 4, and 252) that are not registered by this document, the
> >  two are not exactly congruent even though none of those registered
> >  by this document are in conflict with that registry.  This could
> >  be worked out with IANA and made and RFC Editor note, though.
> fyi: algorithm 1 has been deprecated for some time, 0 is reserved (ie,
> do not use), and algorithms 4 and 252 have never been specified.
>
> ie, what you're seeing here may be misguided (that's between you and
> your rabbi), but it's deliberate.