Hi Paul On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 01:29:16PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote: > > (not sure why I didn't see an email yet) > > I made some small changes to draft-wouters-sury-dnsop-algorithm-update > > https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-wouters-sury-dnsop-algorithm-update-02.txt > > - Give a little more preference in favour of the EdDSA upcomimg > algorithms at the expense of the ECDSA ones.
Ed25519 offers users a non-NIST ECC alternative. It has been deployed in
non-DNS products such as OpenSSH where its use is becoming popular. It
was nice to see it introduced to DNS by what is now
draft-ietf-curdle-dnskey-eddsa.
Why is it at SHOULD+ and not a MUST? What influences whether it is
upgraded to a MUST or not?
The draft says:
> SHOULD+ This term means the same as SHOULD. However, it is likely
> that an algorithm marked as SHOULD+ will be promoted at
> some future time to be a MUST.
Does this mean it will likely be promoted in a future revision of this
draft, or farther in the future?
Mukund
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
