On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:29:00AM +0100, Alfred Hönes wrote:
(3)
I also concur with Andrew that having different requirement levels
in a fundamental protocol that does not allow negotiation of
crypto-algorithms also causes severe deployability concerns.
I want to be perfectly clear: I did not say that; neither did I imply
it. I don't know that I believe it. The statement to which I think
you are referring was merely an attempt to focus the discussion opened
by my esteemed co-Chair, thereby to make sure that we stick to the
question of picking algorithm support levels _for DNSSEC_, and not in
general. So I was pointing out a feature of DNSSEC that is different
from at least some other contexts.
For the record, I refuse to have a personal opinion one way or the
other on what the IESG should do with the draft in question. I
believe the WG decided to support its publication, and in my capacity
as Chair I feel duty-bound to promote that support. I am not the
shepherd for this document, however, and I have no stake in the
outcome.
Best,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs(_at_)shinkuro(_dot_)com
Shinkuro, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf