Re: [DNSOP] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update-07: (with COMMENT)

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

[ - IESG (for clutter), Bob & Tim (through DNSOP / Chairs respectively) ]


On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 7:55 AM Paul Wouters <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Fri, 5 Apr 2019, Bob Harold wrote:
>
> [ SNIP ]
>
> >       In a similar vein, if we stay at PS, a lot of the references seem
> like
> >       they would need to move from Informative to Normative, since to
> >       implement the various MUST-level algorithms you have to follow
> those
> >       references.
>
> I would not say those references are normative in that sense. You don't
> HAVE to read how GOST is specified to not implement it.
>
>
Perhaps, but there are still lots of Informative references which
implementers would need to read. For example:

RFC5702, RFC6605:
8 RSA/SHA-256 RSASHA256 Y * [RFC5702]
10 RSA/SHA-512 RSASHA512 Y * [RFC5702]
13 ECDSA Curve P-256 with SHA-256 ECDSAP256SHA256 Y * [RFC6605]

RFC4509:
2 SHA-256 MANDATORY [RFC4509]

It is a simple matter to make these Normative....


-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
pants.
   ---maf