Hi Jari,
I sent a message to the IESG yesterday (see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg87189.html
). As the wasn't any response from the IESG there might be a
perception that the IESG isn't responsive to concerns when the matter
affects OpenSSH code. For what it is worth OpenSSH is widely
deployed. It is easy to assess whether what I wrote is true by
looking at a few open source operating systems.
It has been stated that:
'To break the deadlock, document authors often choose some "seemingly
unused" code points, often by selecting the next available value from
the registry; this is problematic because these may turn out to be
different from those later assigned by IANA. To make this problem
worse, "pre-RFC" implementations are often developed and deployed
based on these code point selections.'
I did not choose a "seemingly unused" code point (see
draft-moonesamy-sshfp-ed25519-01). I followed what the IETF
documentation says and the advice I have been given. I requested
feedback from CFRG even though it is not an IETF Working Group. I
could have objected to that given what has been said in the news.
According to RFC 2026:
"If an individual should disagree with an action taken by the IESG in
this process, that person should first discuss the issue with the
ISEG Chair."
The problem is that the IESG has not taken any action. In my opinion
it is constructive to be open to discussion.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy