Re: OPENPGPKEY RRTYPE review - [IANA #773394]

Dear Colleages,

This message ends the review process for the OPENPGPKEY RRTYPE. Based
on the provided documentation and the list traffic, this request meets
both requirements of RFC6895 section 3.1.1 and none of section
3.1.2. Therefore should be accepted.

Best Regards,
Frederico Neves

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 06:34:03PM -0300, Frederico A C Neves wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> Bellow is a completed template requesting a new RRTYPE assignment
> under the procedures of RFC6895.
> 
> This message starts a 2 weeks period for an expert review of the DNS
> RRTYPE parameter allocation for OPENPGPKEY specified at:
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dane-openpgpkey-00#section-2
> 
> If you have comments regarding this request please post them here
> before Aug 6th 21:00 UTC.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Frederico Neves
> 
> --begin 6895 template TLSA--
>  A. Submission Date: 23-07-2014
> 
>  B.1 Submission Type:  [x] New RRTYPE  [ ] Modification to RRTYPE
>  B.2 Kind of RR:  [x] Data RR  [ ] Meta-RR
> 
>  C. Contact Information for submitter (will be publicly posted):
>     Name: Paul Wouters         Email Address: [email protected]
>     International telephone number: +1-647-896-3464
>     Other contact handles: [email protected]
> 
>  D. Motivation for the new RRTYPE application.
> 
>     Publishing RFC-4880 OpenPGP formatted keys in DNS with DNSSEC
>     protection to faciliate automatic encryption of emails in
>     defense against pervasive monitoring.
> 
>  E. Description of the proposed RR type.
> 
>     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dane-openpgpkey-00#section-2
> 
>  F. What existing RRTYPE or RRTYPEs come closest to filling that need
>     and why are they unsatisfactory?
> 
>     The CERT RRtype is the closest match. It unfortunately depends on
>     subtyping, and its use in general is no longer recommended. It
>     also has no human usable presentation format. Some usage types of
>     CERT require external URI's which complicates the security model.
>     This was discussed in the dane working group.
> 
>  G. What mnemonic is requested for the new RRTYPE (optional)?
> 
>     OPENPGPKEY
> 
>  H. Does the requested RRTYPE make use of any existing IANA registry
>     or require the creation of a new IANA subregistry in DNS
>     Parameters?  If so, please indicate which registry is to be used
>     or created.  If a new subregistry is needed, specify the
>     allocation policy for it and its initial contents.  Also include
>     what the modification procedures will be.
> 
>     The RDATA part uses the key format specified in RFC-4880, which
>     itself use https://www.iana.org/assignments/pgp-parameters/pgp-parameters.xhtm
> 
>     This RRcode just uses the formats specified in those registries
>     for its RRdata part.
> 
> 
>  I. Does the proposal require/expect any changes in DNS
>     servers/resolvers that prevent the new type from being processed
>     as an unknown RRTYPE (see [RFC3597])?
> 
>     No.
> 
>  J. Comments:
> 
>     Currently, three software implementations of draft-ietf-dane-openpgpkey
>     are using a private number.
> --end 6895 template TLSA--
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext