Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Call for Adoption: draft-hoffman-dnssec-iana-cons

Stephen Farrell <> Mon, 04 January 2021 13:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 515C33A0D14 for <>; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 05:04:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.361
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.361 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bXbobAgFRHuQ for <>; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 05:04:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7360C3A0CF5 for <>; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 05:04:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0083CBE47; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 13:03:58 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bhaBvzW8OiJz; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 13:03:57 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E9D57BE56; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 13:03:16 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1609765397; bh=kwlENlcKXxHd58vcnDlFVkJeAtKA33lRk2nxRNCnL9U=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=FPkUWa6dwrt19B2J9fwuG1B5Dqa5I/aPBh8ScNj4Za5gq7/ACgqcKYAl9Zz5BPKtM Q0EIXdaSID5WjL3wEflt/FOhNKBHjxm8pTTVrDHFOlNrpLPLNGVsIaUH0ylySHifhj 6LOcgUdqLyXn7437Pnp7sgqwV2Fl2wK0TbJ433Ow=
To: Vittorio Bertola <>, Paul Hoffman <>
Cc: dnsop <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Stephen Farrell <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2021 13:03:15 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="JkI8F1uDqNfi2Mvz1S5ZLHecWEMpFUOvV"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Call for Adoption: draft-hoffman-dnssec-iana-cons
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2021 13:04:07 -0000


On 04/01/2021 11:31, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> We could ask the proponents of new algorithms for information on
> current or expected usage. 

WRT GOST, we're not really talking about an algorithm but
rather a national crypto standards scheme that selects sets
of algorithms. For such things, whether from Russia or the
US or anywhere, I think it's quite fair to ask "how has
version N deployment gone?" as part of considering how to
handle version N+1. Indeed, it'd seem wrong not to ask and
get an answer.

And "how to handle" isn't always "adoption" but could as
I said result in deprecating version N if nobody really
cares about it - in such a case that'd help implementers
and better reflect reality.


> However, if adoption is relevant to any
> kind of decision on what to do with an algorithm proposal, this
> should better be formalized somewhere and applied evenly to all
> algorithms that may appear in the future. Personally, I think that
> some expectation of adoption would be useful not to clutter the list
> of algorithms, but the threshold should be quite low.