Re: [DNSOP] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Stephen Farrell writes: >> I've changed the text to test for both. I think that's a good suggestion. > > Great thanks. Happy to clear when you post an update with > that handled. Here's the update URL (-05):

Re: [DNSOP] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Wes, On 05/08/16 22:18, Wes Hardaker wrote: > "Stephen Farrell" writes: > >> Why omit sha256 (in particular Alg = 8) from this? That >> seems like a quite bad plan and *not* a BCP given our >> current knowledge of hash functions. > > I've changed the text to

Re: [DNSOP] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Stephen Farrell" writes: > Why omit sha256 (in particular Alg = 8) from this? That > seems like a quite bad plan and *not* a BCP given our > current knowledge of hash functions. I've changed the text to test for both. I think that's a good suggestion. > general,

[DNSOP] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance-04: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)