Thanks for the review, Roni! Jari
On 03 Nov 2015, at 20:04, Sandra Murphy <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
