Earlier, Wes said "I believe the 8624bis document is functionally "done" and
should be published." However, there has been too little discussion on what the
new columns actually mean, and someone reading the new IANA registries would
not know what to do.
In specific, "Use for DNSSSEC Signing" a
Thanks for your comments. Regarding the lack of mention of the Red Hat
incident, it seemed to me that an RFC proposing an organized way to manage
the lifecycle of algorithms should not include mention of a particular
incident. If someone feels it's necessary to document the triggering
event, perh
As I said in my immediately previous email, thanks for the support and I'm
in complete agreement.
Steve
On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 6:22 PM Wes Hardaker wrote:
> Wes Hardaker writes:
>
> > I believe we must allow for this possibility in the 4 columns even
> > when we may wish it won't be used.
>
Paul,
You wrote, "You cannot use two algorithms to sign or delegate at the same
time." If there are two or more independent signers for a zone -- see RFC
8901 -- then multiple algorithms might be in use at the same time.
I think there is some wording that says the algorithms must be the same, I
On Oct 12, 2024, at 09:20, Steve Crocker wrote:
> You wrote, "You cannot use two algorithms to sign or delegate at the same
> time." If there are two or more independent signers for a zone -- see RFC
> 8901 -- then multiple algorithms might be in use at the same time.
>
> I think there is some
Wes,
Thanks for your comments and support. I'm in complete agreement. See
inline for an additional comment.
Steve
On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 6:16 PM Wes Hardaker wrote:
> Tim Wicinski writes:
>
> > I do believe the 8624bis authors and the WG are open to updating
> the values for the table
> >
