On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 at 21:32, Wes Hardaker <wjh...@hardakers.net> wrote: >8
> > I'm even more firmly of the opinion, however, that for SHOULDs and MUSTs > we absolutely need general industry acceptance of an algorithm that > resources SHOULD be committed to. As such, IMHO, we must have an IETF > consensus backed RFC that documents cases where SHOULDs and MUSTs are > put into thees new columns. Anything else only amounts to confusion by > the industry as to what resources should be spent within DNS software > owners to ensure wide adoption of algorithms is possible and likely. > > agree A similar level of clarity is also much needed at the end of the life cycle. When consensus is reached that an algorithm merits a MUST NOT for signing, there needs to be an agreed process or timetable leading to a MUST NOT for validation, after which maintenance of implementations may safely be abandoned. rwf --
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
