IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Call for Adoption: draft-belyavskiy-rfc5933-bis

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 19 July 2020 15:25 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6D8E3A0989 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 08:25:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=JtAXG0PD; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=RVFqFIiF
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hl7TkSJlYVJU for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 08:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7AC8C3A0985 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 08:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 59463 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2020 15:25:34 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=e840.5f1465ee.k2007; bh=HNJOCO+pjPtYtC294tYZeerqPKLEmz0QkGDDxc5Bl9I=; b=JtAXG0PD3nbpP4fsQW5NcUsvoZUBE+IMMxr1+719JJ/xB0cIq88Ie4SiqyYfCO/V+iDvkXbi76Iy/pTryO+zsGQxH6Mqsphdifqj2iskHxq7rCwVXvBZ8JDhay+pzPgxznhLftLb9JWtEjMbse9+J5I0wCndnG/jj8rJhZFvQ2X5sPD8wfDqcKAV6Eex6IB6G4d1qF+H0+BjOP80BeAZhasrdZdSzvNY1j139asNWRCa5u8MIIq/TFGiUPTtl2AU
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=e840.5f1465ee.k2007; bh=HNJOCO+pjPtYtC294tYZeerqPKLEmz0QkGDDxc5Bl9I=; b=RVFqFIiFdfx5ogqQMqwHydTclTFjZ4p3IDQ0QqpLhSn9cv3gvm5LLq9s9Z8PmlJScKp8D2sdO5IiC5Z3R6S3rI0JqUlcwHRvQpfkMHzj4dBZ38m8jKFkJihJsKoKJ64PJVxZWahyEgLnG6x8T9P/DM1BGWC+IbCe0pjYTvV/J0k/txJFCe91jKuHfatEGHqAcd87uDgd9qgqmyRUyGAcm6+G1KDNYwzwEniDkZkz5T1oindZs7RK1DVE4RDw3W11
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 19 Jul 2020 15:25:33 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id E95BD1D3977A; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 11:25:33 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2020 11:25:33 -0400
Message-Id: <20200719152533.E95BD1D3977A@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Cc: ondrej@isc.org
In-Reply-To: <32CEC795-45F3-48C7-BD42-DCCFE0454B7A@isc.org>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Kt2oL6e4E6ZpNVZLKSm5TX6ZPuE>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Call for Adoption: draft-belyavskiy-rfc5933-bis
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2020 15:25:37 -0000

In article <32CEC795-45F3-48C7-BD42-DCCFE0454B7A@isc.org> you write:
>„because there’s RFC“. The whole reason for standardization is that there’s interoperatibility
>between the implementations - and just giving the code points without implementing this
>hardly fulfills that requirement.

I thought that in situations like this, the reason to assign the code
point is so that other people don't use it for something else.

ECC-GOST has been number 12 for a decade. I don't get the impression
it's widely implemented, but has it caused any problems?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email