Sam Hartman wrote:
I'm not certain without going back and retracing the email threads, but I believe there may be enough calls for support in previous versions of the document to not ask people to raise their hand, yet again, whether they want to see hash agility or not before publishing this document. It may not be the exact text of -13 that was available during those previous calls, but certainly a version with and without hash agility was on the table. I'll leave it up to the Chair to make this call, and trust that he has a good backing. Olafur, if you don't have an email thread to back you up here, please do ask for one more call for support, not just silence, on the hash agility issue and the specific text in -13. You can even blame Sam (H) if you like ;-)As an individual, I do not believe it is desirable to publish nsec3 without a solution to the hash agility problem in hand. So, I object to publishing this draft. I expect that I'm in the rough on this consensus issue and will not block as an AD. I'd be delighted to find others agree, but doubt that a sufficient number will. However, since there are objections, I assume the chairs will also call for support;silence in the presence of objections is not rough consensus.
- Mark
Thanks, --Sam
-- to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>