Hi Paul, I think this is good.
Is it in response to the DNS-OARC talk we saw about implementing PQC Falcon in PowerDNS, and they used the next unused algorithm number rather than a private algorithm? If the authors of that work are on this list I would be interested to hear from them about that decision. In particular, would just having more private algorithms change their thinking or is something else needed? DW > On Mar 20, 2022, at 3:21 PM, Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote: > > Greetings again. I have created a new, very short draft to add more private > use algorithms to DNSSEC. > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-more-private-algs/ > The abstract says: > RFC 4034 allocates one value in the IANA registry for DNSSEC > algorithm numbers for private algorithms. That may be too few for > experimentation where multiple yet-to-be-assigned algorithms are > used. This document assigns seven more values for this use case. > > That's about it. This is quite low priority for now, but might become more > important as people start to experiment with multiple pre-standard > post-quantum algorithms at the same time. > > --Paul Hoffman > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > [email protected] > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1wTYBJPegvx-YY8FDLO4TQmd85aR-2DI2pH_1yIk3I-B-ciRbwVZA6lKWr8oR6DqFfDGQLetyrXiOoMYiaYP8Yq8Q4gcSU2Hc-8LodoRKdJJHe-HQVLmzoxZ5DA7ylHe7nq6YVxOdY7neqDUld-hghmdGrPdfphyHU-6A_hzotHSoBty51v7xZlLXMBELLIKZcFz2RHNnUuPZ8_PK4i1TyAjxPC0ToQwd56ffht4GgL8oeK95bNv7jZ43kpyp_yZj/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fdnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
