Hiya,
On 04/01/2021 16:05, Paul Wouters wrote:
While asking is fair, you would also have to define what you do based on the outcome of that ask. You left that out,
I don't think I did omit that. My stated reason to ask was to help me figure out what I think about the draft named in the subject line. And yes, I do think that if a codepoint is being requested for a new version of an existing one then asking about how the existing one was used is a good thing to do. The case with gost and rsa+sha1/sha256 isn't the same because gost is a series of national standards. > As to answer your question, I believe GOST did not see > more than about 5 domains use it in what was clearly a > "Testing" deployment. Thanks. In that case, it sounds like it'd have been better to use a private or experimental code point for that kind of thing. OTOH, my understanding (based only on hallway chats over the years) was that the codepoint was allocated for political reasons. Either way, does that mean that a lot of effort to implement and test was wasted since that codepoint was allocated? If so, avoiding that in future would be good, if there's a way to do that. Cheers, S. PS: note that I'm neither supporting, nor objecting to, Paul's draft in the above.
OpenPGP_0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
