On Mar 21, 2022, at 11:34 AM, Wessels, Duane <dwessels=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > Is it in response to the DNS-OARC talk we saw about implementing PQC Falcon > in PowerDNS, and they used the next unused algorithm number rather than a > private algorithm?
Nils could have picked 253 but probably didn't even think of looking down to the bottom of the list. He was just following the time-honored pattern in the IETF. :-) > If the authors of that work are on this list I would be interested to hear > from them about that decision. In particular, would just having more private > algorithms change their thinking or is something else needed? They only needed one. This draft is for experimenters who need many at the same time. NIST has said that they are likely to later standardize on multiple post-quantum signature algorithms which will create larger payloads, and the DNSSEC community will have to decide if it wants just one of those, or many. Having a bit of experimental space for authoritative and recursive developers would be good, given that basically the entire range will be empty for centuries. --Paul Hoffman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
