Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> wrote:
>> On Aug 10, 2022, at 10:30, Robert Moskowitz <rgm-...@htt-consult.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I will fix my example. Do you think I should have both examples: with
>> and without gateway?
> No. First because you are not tunneling and it doesn’t apply to you and
> second because it can only be set for IPSECKEY records in the reverse
> zones, not in any forward zones.
Agreed!
>> Per Paul's request I am coming up that for EdDSA I would ask the
>> following be added:
>>
>> 4 An EdDSA Public key is present, in the format defined in [RFC8080]
>> [This]
>>
>>
>> Note the addition of "Public"
>>
>> So should 1 - 3 also have "Public" added? Should 4 NOT have "Public"
>> Should text be added describing this registry to be for "Public" keys?
> I think it should have public and an errata could be filed for 1-3 ? Or
> we can draft a separate draft for encoding algo 14 (digital signatures)
> that also fixes up these entries ?
I supposed that the word public could be added all over the Registry.
I think that RFC4025 has the word in enough places that it should be obvious
that a private key does not go there.
So this seems like printing "This bag is not a toy" on stuff, but I don't
object to this.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
