Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update

fujiwara@jprs.co.jp Sun, 21 October 2018 15:40 UTC

Return-Path: <fujiwara@jprs.co.jp>
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 86EDD130FE5 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 08:40:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 5MBWibp8r29e for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 08:40:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from off-send01.osa.jprs.co.jp (off-send01.osa.jprs.co.jp [IPv6:2001:218:3001:17::10]) (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 3D29F130FDF for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 08:40:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from off-sendsmg01.osa.jprs.co.jp (off-sendsmg01.osa.jprs.co.jp [172.23.8.61]) by off-send01.osa.jprs.co.jp (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w9LFeKHl030939; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 00:40:20 +0900
Received: from off-sendsmg01.osa.jprs.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by postfix.imss71 (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCD811800B6; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 00:40:19 +0900 (JST)
Received: from localhost (off-cpu05.osa.jprs.co.jp [172.23.4.15]) by off-sendsmg01.osa.jprs.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7EA21800B2; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 00:40:19 +0900 (JST)
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 00:40:19 +0900 (JST)
Message-Id: <20181022.004019.1615670116405060818.fujiwara@jprs.co.jp>
To: vladimir.cunat@nic.cz
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
From: fujiwara@jprs.co.jp
In-Reply-To: <5d5e7513-fcb5-04b2-ba53-60ab9ab8b193@nic.cz>
References: <20181016.000457.1043014259425988884.fujiwara@jprs.co.jp> <20181018.061802.1574444586575789321.fujiwara@jprs.co.jp> <5d5e7513-fcb5-04b2-ba53-60ab9ab8b193@nic.cz>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.6 on Emacs 24.4 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1690-8.2.0.1013-24170.000
X-TM-AS-Result: No--8.518-5.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--8.518-5.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: vMI3egdXDQ1CXIGdsOwlUu5i6weAmSDKYawhvkuLgj6qvcIF1TcLYMNG 97DfmZl7cZCS5B07d6SuuNGBEeonCjYMnpQeGMdCVF7yOiu4q2mRPtwwl97om1AoBBK61BhcYBm s7r2ZnonBmF2+ZhWl2I8BEXKkIjo2JX/6wXlfbdFtD1qg9KZYkVPgO2JKQydYWltirZ/iPP5sZ4 uiDGf3OOLzNWBegCW2MdKoK+KB5jjP/MyuVlT/C0tIkhusciGXKhhcdtc4iyELbigRnpKlKSPzR lrdFGDwGhq+wRT6tnfPvidrbFzCK5daR9BVC8MIYiiqehPAixnxjIOlcQ16ig==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/tO8YDLnhTgeiJcVolN4ddqB-Ilk>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update
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, 21 Oct 2018 15:40:37 -0000

> From: Vladimír Čunát <vladimir.cunat@nic.cz>;
> On 10/17/18 11:18 PM, fujiwara@jprs.co.jp wrote:
>> 4. In my opinion, Ed25519 is best algorithm some yars later.
>>    If the document describes both current RECOMMENDATIONS and
>>    RECOMMENDATIONS some years later, we can plan.
> 
> 
> I agree, but the last paragraph of 3.1 seems to express that already:

Yes.

# I'm afraid that some TLD/Root operators may not support ED25519
# because it is RECOMMENDED (not MUST).

>> It is expected that ED25519 will become the future RECOMMENDED default
>> algorithm once there's enough support for this algorithm in the
>> deployed DNSSEC validators.
> Do you mean that "expected future recommendations" should be made more
> visible in a separate section or something?

Yes. (something)

--
Kazunori Fujiwara, JPRS <fujiwara@jprs.co.jp>;