Subject: [DNSOP] minor update to draft-wouters-sury-dnsop-algorithm-update

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 13:29:16 -0400 (EDT)

(not sure why I didn't see an email yet)

I made some small changes to draft-wouters-sury-dnsop-algorithm-update

https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-wouters-sury-dnsop-algorithm-update-02.txt

- Give a little more preference in favour of the EdDSA upcomimg
   algorithms at the expense of the ECDSA ones.
- Made ECC-GOST a little more consistent between signing and resolving.
- Updated references

The biggest issue that came up in previous discussions, is that at least
one vendor stated they will "never" remove signing support for certain
algorithms as to not break existing deployments, which would significantly
slow down deprecation of obsolete algorithms. But I don't think there is
anything that this document could change to that, other than hoping new
implementations will just skip implementing those algorithms.

Paul

---

From: Mukund Sivaraman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 23:53:54 +0530

Hi Paul

>   algorithms at the expense of the ECDSA ones.

Ed25519 offers users a non-NIST ECC alternative. It has been deployed in
non-DNS products such as OpenSSH where its use is becoming popular. It
was nice to see it introduced to DNS by what is now
draft-ietf-curdle-dnskey-eddsa.

Why is it at SHOULD+ and not a MUST? What influences whether it is
upgraded to a MUST or not?

The draft says:

> SHOULD+   This term means the same as SHOULD.  However, it is likely
>           that an algorithm marked as SHOULD+ will be promoted at
>           some future time to be a MUST.

Does this mean it will likely be promoted in a future revision of this
draft, or farther in the future?

		Mukund