Peter
On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 11:58 AM Peter Thomassen <pe...@desec.io> wrote: > Hi, > > On 1/29/25 17:46, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > Second, the "Digest Algorithms" aka "DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) > Resource Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms" Registry > > ( > https://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types/ds-rr-types.xhtml#ds-rr-types-1 > < > https://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types/ds-rr-types.xhtml#ds-rr-types-1>) > has been updated with corresponding code points: > > > > > > +=====+===================+===========+==========+ > > |Value|Description |Status |Reference | > > +=====+===================+===========+==========+ > > > > | 5 | GOST R 34.11-2012 | OPTIONAL | [RFC9558] | > > | 6 | SM3 | OPTIONAL | [RFC9563] | > > +-----+-------------------+----------+-----------+ > > What is the meaning of the "Status" column in relation to the values in > Table 3 of the draft? (RFC 4034 Appendix 2 defines this column, but not its > meaning.) > > Is there a possibility for inconsistencies? (Should it be removed if the > new columns cover it?) > > I *believe* (which is not making any claims I know what I am talking about) this column refers if implementations must support it. This could (and maybe should?) be removed and replaced with the additional columns. thanks tim Best, > Peter > > -- > https://desec.io/ >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
