Hi, > > How about instead of loosening the requirement, we take the top 64 values, > > allocate them as > > either Experimental or FCFS, and it is explicitly noted NOT REQUIRED (or NO > > ONE WILL IMPLEMENT > > THESE FOR YOU). > > > > That would leave the registry with the strict requirements and allow items > > to get code points. > > > > Too simple an answer? > > I think this is the best solution. There just will be nation state > crypto, and this allows those to exist. And we still keep control > of limiting the international ciphers by the IETF to the small > subset we think is good, hopefully preventing new long tails of > obsolete ciphers.
I agree, except that I'd make allocation policy Specification (or RFC) Required and not FCFS or Experimental. Because I believe that _some_ bar should exist, not to make this area a garbage bin... Regards, Valery. > Paul > > _______________________________________________ > 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
