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

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 04:01:04PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> 
> That seems like it would have eliminated my confusion. Perhaps also
> explicitly state that this document aims to classify existing and
> all future algorithms that might be standardised, until replaced. 

This paragraph in 2.4 doesn't do:

   [RFC6014] establishes a parallel procedure for adding a registry
   entry for a new algorithm other than a standards track document.
   Because any algorithm not listed in the foregoing table is Optional,
   algorithms entered into the registry using the [RFC6014] procedure
   are automatically Optional.

?
 
> ECC-GOST are not recommended, although I believe they have the same
> advantages. Arguably ECC-GOST has been around for longer, and hence
> has an advantage over ECDSA. Both have stable references, in
> 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.  This is the first time
this question came up.  I think that would be a substantive change to
the intent of the document, and would require a new WGLC, but I think
yours is a fair question.

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]