Tero,
I've reviewed this draft. I support it and believe it is ready to move forward
towards becoming a standards-track RFC. Also, would it make sense to ask
IANA for early assignment of the code point? Using 0 sounds reasonable to me.
Minor typo in the introduction:
"we define a new value has in the SIGNATURE_HASH_ALGORITHMS notification,"
s/value has in/value hash in/
Thanks,
David
> On Feb 8, 2017, at 05:41, Tero Kivinen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> This message will start two week working group last call for the
> draft-nir-ipsecme-eddsa-00 [1] draft.
>
> Please send your comments, questions etc to WG mailing list before
> 2017-02-24. If you belive that the document is ready to be submitted
> to the IESG for consideration as a standard track RFC please send a
> short message stating this also.
>
> This document has been mostly ready for some time, but we have been
> waiting for curdle and cfrg to do some work needed for this. Firstly
> we needed to get oids from the curdle, and the
> draft-ietf-curdle-pkix-03 [2] allocating the oids is in the WGLC in
> curdle WG.
>
> Secondly we have been waiting for the CFRG to decide wheter we should
> use contextes or not. This is same issue than in the TLS wg, so we go
> with the same resolution. CFRG has now decided [3] that no contexes is
> used in TLS case, and as IPsec is in similar situation, we go with
> that.
>
> So as those things we have been waiting for, are now cleared this
> document can now go forward.
>
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nir-ipsecme-eddsa/
> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-curdle-pkix/
> [3] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/current/msg08934.html
> --
> [email protected]
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
