On Thu, 18 Jun 2020, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:47 AM Tim Wicinski <[email protected]> wrote:
Eric
One of the reasons we've published 8624 was to offer usage recommendations,
and especially this table:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8624#page-5
I believe I saw that one of the authors mentioned earlier they are looking to
do a -bis update, to update this table.
Thanks for the pointer. And I suppose I could live with an Informational RFC
with a NOT RECOMMENDED entry in this table.
It would be very strange to introduce a new algorithm as NOT RECOMMENDED.
The weakest I think we should introduce something is as MAY.
The typical cycle of a new algorithm is MAY, SHOULD, MUST, SHOULD NOT,
MUST NOT (where NOT RECOMMENDED is really SHOULD NOT). For a less
successful algorithms it might go as MAY, SHOULD NOT, MUST NOT.
I also feel a little weird doing it as an INFORMATIONAL, but no one
outside the IETF really knows the difference for RFCs anyway.
Paul
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
