Reducing the cc list, since I don’t know if you intended a question below.
Thanks for the review. On Oct 30, 2015, at 6:42 PM, Roni Even <[email protected]> wrote: > > Nits/editorial comments: > > I assume that the computability with RFC6485 as discussed in section 8 was > discussed in the WG Not sure this is a question or if you wanted an answer. The requirement to accept both signature algorithm IDs comes from section 2 and has been there since the -00 version, so yes, reviewed by the wg. The wg also discussed that all known implementations (there are a small number at this stage of deployment) accept the signature algorithm ID specified in this document and do not adhere to rfc6485 as spec'd. (This is noted in the shepherd document). So the compatibility issue is mostly moot. —Sandy
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
