Thom 
As I have before stated in the past, adding new DNSSEC algorithm is bad for 
interoperability, 
I oppose the adoption of this document unless there are better reasons put 
forward why this algorithm is better than
the 4 ECC algorithms that have been standardized so far. 
Better in this case could be stronger, faster, better post-quantum resistance 
etc 

Also I want to point out this last call did not specify track so my opposition 
is against all tracks, at this point. 

Olafur




> On Jun 3, 2020, at 5:07 PM, Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> As we stated in the meeting and in our chairs actions, we're going to run
> regular call for adoptions over next few months.  
> We are looking for *explicit* support for adoption.
> 
> 
> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-belyavskiy-rfc5933-bis
> 
> The draft is available here: 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-belyavskiy-rfc5933-bis/ 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-belyavskiy-rfc5933-bis/>
> 
> Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption
> by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.
> 
> Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc.
> 
> This call for adoption ends: 15 June 2020
> 
> Thanks,
> tim wicinski
> DNSOP co-chair
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to