Peace, On Tue, Jul 7, 2020, 5:17 AM Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> wrote:
> On Jul 6, 2020, at 6:07 PM, Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > To not adopt this means, the implementers could easily pick their own > > This seems unlikely. If they step on unallocated code points, few > implementers will go along with that because implementers generally respect > the IETF and IANA more than they respect a country's crypto regime. > That's only correct when said implementers have a choice. With no allocated points going to be available in the future, a hijack would be the only viable option. Also, we have stepped on that rake before. You don't need a lot of implementers going nuts to destroy interoperability. You only need *one* who would be successful in that s/he is doing. Let's face it, there's not gonna be hundreds of DNSSEC GOST implementations anyway, I think maybe 3 or 4 would finally be born, and one of those would likely win the competition and become a standard de-facto. See, without the code point allocation it's a pure gamble on whether we'll get interop issues in the future or not. -- Töma >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
