Re: [DNSOP] More private algorithms for DNSSEC

Hi Paul,

I think this is good.

Is it in response to the DNS-OARC talk we saw about implementing PQC Falcon in PowerDNS, and they used the next unused algorithm number rather than a private algorithm? If the authors of that work are on this list I would be interested to hear from them about that decision. In particular, would just having more private algorithms change their thinking or is something else needed?

DW

> On Mar 20, 2022, at 3:21 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> wrote:
> 
> Greetings again. I have created a new, very short draft to add more private use algorithms to DNSSEC.
>   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-more-private-algs/
> The abstract says:
>   RFC 4034 allocates one value in the IANA registry for DNSSEC
>   algorithm numbers for private algorithms.  That may be too few for
>   experimentation where multiple yet-to-be-assigned algorithms are
>   used.  This document assigns seven more values for this use case.
> 
> That's about it. This is quite low priority for now, but might become more important as people start to experiment with multiple pre-standard post-quantum algorithms at the same time.
> 
> --Paul Hoffman
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1wTYBJPegvx-YY8FDLO4TQmd85aR-2DI2pH_1yIk3I-B-ciRbwVZA6lKWr8oR6DqFfDGQLetyrXiOoMYiaYP8Yq8Q4gcSU2Hc-8LodoRKdJJHe-HQVLmzoxZ5DA7ylHe7nq6YVxOdY7neqDUld-hghmdGrPdfphyHU-6A_hzotHSoBty51v7xZlLXMBELLIKZcFz2RHNnUuPZ8_PK4i1TyAjxPC0ToQwd56ffht4GgL8oeK95bNv7jZ43kpyp_yZj/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fdnsop