> 19 июня 2020 г., в 21:17, Dick Franks <rwfra...@gmail.com> написал(а): > > On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 18:12, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org > <mailto:paul.hoff...@icann.org>> wrote: > On Jun 19, 2020, at 9:26 AM, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com > <mailto:e...@rtfm.com>> wrote: > > What's your reasoning for why there needs to be community review before > > there is a code point assigned? > > Historically, the quality of algorithm descriptions in early drafts has been > variable. What the author considers sufficient and obvious, another might > not. Also, review gives folks a chance to say things like "your test vectors > appear wrong", "having test vectors would be really useful", and so on. > > How does any of that apply? > The algorithm in this case is specified by another standards organisation and > is what it is. > Community review did not find the incorrect test parameters in RFC5832 / GOST > R34.10-2001.
In the given case it is worth referring to RFC7091/GOST R34-10.2012 but the statement remains the same. dol@
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
