> On Dec 10, 2016, at 06:50, Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]> wrote: > > Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-16: No Objection > > 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.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Maybe I missed it, but I don't think the document is clear on why new > algorithms are needed. Is this specified in one of referenced documents?
I think you’re asking why different algorithms are needed to those specified for the rest of the RPKI? If that’s the case, it’s key/sig size to keep the protocol smaller than if we used RSA/RSA-PSS and that’s covered in RFC 5480. If you’re asking about why would somebody want to define different algorithms for BGPsec then it's discovered weaknesses, vanity :), etc. spt _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
