IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-gost

David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> Fri, 12 February 2010 16:49 UTC

Return-Path: <drc@virtualized.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A2823A7325 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:49:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cP61rP-ng7DK for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:49:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from virtualized.org (trantor.virtualized.org [204.152.189.190]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DCDF3A6BF8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:49:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtualized.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13BC0A9B780; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:51:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at virtualized.org
Received: from virtualized.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (trantor.virtualized.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xXdSToayA0ms; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:50:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.96.18.220] (wlan39-024.mdr.icann.org [192.0.39.24]) by virtualized.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A19D6A9B770; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:50:59 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-gost
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <p06240805c79b294d87a8@[192.168.1.5]>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:50:28 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <42FABD11-2869-45FA-B82F-9956E6A18434@virtualized.org>
References: <p06240806c799d87e7406@[128.89.89.170]> <4B74646F.3080904@ogud.com> <p06240805c79b294d87a8@[192.168.1.5]>
To: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>, iesg@iesg.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:49:46 -0000

On Feb 12, 2010, at 7:57 AM, Stephen Kent wrote:
>> Who gets to decide on what algorithms get first class status and based on what criteria?
> If we look at what the CP developed in the SIDR WG for the RPKI says, the answer is the IESG

So, they're going to flip a coin or what?

"Who" is largely irrelevant.  The criteria is the interesting bit.

>> Steve brought up "national" algorithm, but we have also "personal" algorithms such as curve25519 or threefish.
> WGs like IPsec, TLS, and SMIME have been able to say no to "personal" algs for a long time.

IPsec, TLS, and SMIME are all one-to-one.  DNSSEC (in this context) is one-to-many.

Regards,
-drc

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email