Return-Path: 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 1DAD51294AD for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:24:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.235 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no 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 9vsNFtwFxmj9 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:24:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.banu.com (mail.banu.com [46.4.129.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69FA4129578 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:24:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jurassic (unknown [115.117.170.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.banu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F1FE42FA0166; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 18:23:59 +0000 (GMT) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 23:53:54 +0530 From: Mukund Sivaraman To: Paul Wouters Message-ID: <20161011182354.GA5787@jurassic> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="k1lZvvs/B4yU6o8G" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.0 (2016-08-17) Archived-At: Cc: dnsop@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DNSOP] minor update to draft-wouters-sury-dnsop-algorithm-update X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 18:24:04 -0000 --k1lZvvs/B4yU6o8G Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Paul On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 01:29:16PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote: >=20 > (not sure why I didn't see an email yet) >=20 > I made some small changes to draft-wouters-sury-dnsop-algorithm-update >=20 > https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-wouters-sury-dnsop-algorithm-= update-02.txt >=20 > - Give a little more preference in favour of the EdDSA upcomimg > algorithms at the expense of the ECDSA ones. Ed25519 offers users a non-NIST ECC alternative. It has been deployed in non-DNS products such as OpenSSH where its use is becoming popular. It was nice to see it introduced to DNS by what is now draft-ietf-curdle-dnskey-eddsa. Why is it at SHOULD+ and not a MUST? What influences whether it is upgraded to a MUST or not? The draft says: > SHOULD+ This term means the same as SHOULD. However, it is likely > that an algorithm marked as SHOULD+ will be promoted at > some future time to be a MUST. Does this mean it will likely be promoted in a future revision of this draft, or farther in the future? Mukund --k1lZvvs/B4yU6o8G Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJX/S45AAoJEB9EXrAiC5LsMwEP/Ri0Mxx/zjanxTEE2u2VMK0u Om3YwYpjeAdQaaB1/nRNycDUiK6P7H+vqtJeBKW5fUITBzsIr0XPEIQjd6FAoXAE 7yHL9VitWo4Z0mY/ANkokF/Zc7p3rV1Cv3ieeIoUdU/GQlrEdAK2ubkiek7ITUdP 9Gc1oUbIRVmHa3vdyGyEvf0zyg3WQyErtAL1X2cLZir6mkdiAljNZt4K4c7BgPU5 KD27afgmbv4LAluHZeLRmchlgNWTMJ0R8v9jy8znA3Bn3trpvbmE3CtyRfeflr6b 9PD9agjQHxeSKr3IOFSk5akHqKwCqJTZKDnddeupeeIL6Wpe5Xkskxs8+7pqe61B za6GegfoiYtPFg712J2eQv3XjzWxsNCD9ieRbvJtYLIJ0l9wU5cGXNymY1jqcbtk BXKvJTigmoARqTzOzNMq0hCCT/WdnJ65D1KaAKE0DpwH0uD0p1wTprFUDFgMUsoJ +nch9pVm1nj8FRQJtt8mRMkiAeyfgCdaqWlcObRUXhm9lK4YLB0KJNbjuaKHEhjQ WHyXuuqw/eFjmYTtlODnSqs+EV+fdqWP3jkDsGIwmrHVAwAMwidFaQtQRHRVIFUT rg+UPCS9hboscRsZRGH2rWS0dXmnSCgv51NGswt+jmoISbnYTe+lhduWRd3kSJ7f MjwZd/On8n7rgeOWvfas =JefF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --k1lZvvs/B4yU6o8G--