IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status-04.txt

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Tue, 12 March 2013 13:27 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7723D21F8AD1 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 06:27:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CmEmDwCJwSig for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 06:27:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E3BF21F8A8B for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 06:27:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (dhcp-2430.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.36.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B298C8A031 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:27:45 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 09:27:06 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsext@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20130312132705.GA39133@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <20130311152035.4888.59295.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20130311191607.GF38303@crankycanuck.ca> <E99C99C9-73E1-43F8-B09E-B28CA138F526@hopcount.ca> <20130311194317.GA38441@crankycanuck.ca> <FBCCECBD-43DC-46F1-911F-B06ED43E10C3@hopcount.ca> <20130311201201.GD38441@mx1.yitter.info>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130311201201.GD38441@mx1.yitter.info>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [dnsext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status-04.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:27:47 -0000

Dear colleagues,

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 04:12:01PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 04:01:04PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:

> > English, in the RFC series. What is the reason for appearing to
> > promote one over the other?
> 
> I don't know; that's what the WG said before. 

The reasoning in the draft behind recommending ECDSAP256SHA256 and
ECDSAP384SHA384 and not GOST-ECC is that the former two "may see
widespread use".  Does anyone have an argument that ECC-GOST also
falls into that category?  If so, Joe is quite correct.  If not, then
it seems the current recommendations are ok.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email