> On 15 Mar 2017, at 16:39, John Dickinson <j...@sinodun.com> wrote: > > I like this simple short draft. I prefer its terminology. The only tiny > issue I have is with the wording "Must Not Implement". Since there is > no capability exchange you can not avoid talking with a peer that > happens to support RSAMD5. However, I do of course agree with the > sentiment.
Thanks John! The RSAMD5 status is copied verbatim from RFC6944 and this draft does not alter it. Hope this helps, Roy _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
