Re: Request for a code point assignment for ED25519 - draft-moonesamy-sshfp-ed25519-01

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jari,

I sent a message to the IESG yesterday (see 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg87189.html 
).  As the wasn't any response from the IESG there might be a 
perception that the IESG isn't responsive to concerns when the matter 
affects OpenSSH code.  For what it is worth OpenSSH is widely 
deployed.  It is easy to assess whether what I wrote is true by 
looking at a few open source operating systems.

It has been stated that:

   'To break the deadlock, document authors often choose some "seemingly
    unused" code points, often by selecting the next available value from
    the registry; this is problematic because these may turn out to be
    different from those later assigned by IANA.  To make this problem
    worse, "pre-RFC" implementations are often developed and deployed
    based on these code point selections.'

I did not choose a "seemingly unused" code point (see 
draft-moonesamy-sshfp-ed25519-01).  I followed what the IETF 
documentation says and the advice I have been given.  I requested 
feedback from CFRG even though it is not an IETF Working Group.  I 
could have objected to that given what has been said in the news.

According to RFC 2026:

   "If an individual should disagree with an action taken by the IESG in
    this process, that person should first discuss the issue with the
    ISEG Chair."

The problem is that the IESG has not taken any action.  In my opinion 
it is constructive to be open to discussion.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy