Re: implied NSEC3 support in rsasha256 (was: [dnsext] Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-rsasha256-05)

[Matt Larson <mlarson@verisign.com>]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> I therefore ask those currently objecting to the algorithm aliasing
> whether they can live with the current arrangement, with the proviso
> that we will do something about this in dnssec-bis-updates.  (This is
> option 3.)

No.

> I also ask those who object to the current text, and who
> cannot support option 3, to state explicitly that they'd rather delay
> deployment of SHA-2 than live with this compromise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Your use of the phrase "delay deployment of SHA-2" is unnecesarily
dramatic.  What sort of delay are you talking about?  We already have
proposed text from Jelte.  Or put the -05 text back if there is
insufficient objection to that option.  Let's take until the end of
the week to bring this to a conclusion--from reponses to far it looks
to me like we are close to rough consensus--and then issue another
WGLC.  That's another two weeks, right?  I'll gladly wait another
month to avoid the clutter of more algorithm aliases.

Matt

--
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/>