On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:40 PM, John Kristoff <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:36:52 -0400 > Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> There isn't an advocate for the protocol to push it through a WG >> process. DJB has not played that role to date. I don't think he plans >> to do so in future. > > What did Dan say when you asked him about it?
Its what he didn't do - post to this list. > David Ulevitch expressed interest in his team helping develop a > standard based on the work they've done with their dnscrypt > implementation. See here: > > <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dns-privacy/current/msg00193.html> And that is how I would expect to see DNSCurve appear in IETF process. It is a good piece of work but not final. I am not happy about presenting work just to shoot it down. What we want to do here is to produce a specification that essentially fits into the same niche as DNSCurve but follows an IETF architectural style rather than being hyperoptimized to one set of parameters. DNSCurve was originally proposed to do a rather different job and it is actually better at that job than DNSSEC in my opinion. I would expect that anyone taking up DNSCurve and proposing it in this forum would do what I did and use it as a starting point and make modifications. _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
