On 9/9/15, 15:29, dnsop-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of
ietf-d...@dukhovni.org wrote:
>My other concern is that at this point, perhaps every time
>we consider adding more algorithm ids to DNSSEC we should consider
>retiring some old ones, we are starting to have too many:
This reminds me of a line
Viktor,
while I wholeheartedly agree that we might deprecate DSA, and perhaps issue a
recommendation on what is the minimum recommended algorithm, this is really
out-of-the-scope for the cfrg curves draft. I would be happy to help
(co-author, review, etc..) the deprecation I-D/RFC, I think we
There is a current document that would need to be updated: RFC 6944:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6944
The RFC needs to be updated to include the new elliptic curve
algorithms. It would also be a good place to move other algorithms to
other categories.
Scott
On 10 Sep 2015, at 10:02, Ondře
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:44:23PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> >>Once the CFRG algorithms are done, I would also publish an updated
> >>list of MTI algorithms for DNSSEC that would consist of:
> >>
> >>8, 12 and both of the CFRG algorithms.
>
> You listed 12 as both deprecate and MTI ?
Sorr
Hi Joe,
On 31.8.2015 23:44, Joe Abley wrote:
> [You might consider using "initiator" rather than "requestor", incidentally; I
> think I first saw "initiator" and "responder" in one of Vixie's drafts, and I
> like them to describe the actors that engage in a single DNS transaction.]
Well, RFC 2136
