[dnsext] Re: implied NSEC3 support in rsasha256

[Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>]

>>>>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:43:50 +0100, Jelte Jansen <jelte@NLnetLabs.nl> said:

JJ> in waiting for the chairs, i preemptively wrote this earlier today:

I was one of the LC reviewers that took issue with that section.  I
think that text looks good and avoids both the cost of allocating a new
type as well as mandating NSEC3.  Simply recognizing it and discarding
the results as unsigned seems like a good compromise so I'm all for the
new wording-ish.  I think marc's comments about what types of
applications (servers vs validating clients) should be taken into
consideration though.

I don't see the need to do a new LC since this is still resolving the
same issues from the last LC.  Part of the problem with the previous
text that was flagged by a few of us is that it wasn't explained.  Had
an explanation been in the text we probably would have still flagged it
as problematic but with a different complaint.
-- 
"In the bathtub of history the truth is harder to hold than the soap,
 and much more difficult to find."  -- Terry Pratchett

--
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/>