On Jul 7, 2020, at 4:37 AM, Töma Gavrichenkov <xima...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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.
Fair points. Still, a crypto developer who only had to go through the ISE instead of the WG->IETF process should still be happier because they get their point faster. And, as Ekr pointed out early, making all of these registries be just "Expert review" would be even faster. --Paul Hoffman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
