Sandy, Thanks, it is now clear to me Roni -----Original Message----- From: Sandra Murphy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 8:05 PM To: Roni Even Cc: Sandra Murphy; [email protected]; IETF Gen-ART Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-04
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 _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
