Why is this WG considering making this document Standards Track instead of Informational? Also, why is the WG considering putting the document in our work stream at all? Can the WG can bring much value to the document itself? We do have lots of other things we are working on.
There is no procedural need for this document to be part of the DNSOP working group. In order for this algorithm to get an algorithm number from IANA, all that is needed is an RFC. National crypto algorithms is one of the common use cases for the Independent Stream in the RFC Series. Suggesting that the authors publish it there will take less time for all of us, will conceivably get it published as an RFC sooner, and fulfills the requirement for them to get their assignment from IANA. --Paul Hoffman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
