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
