RE: private algorithms and the DS record

["Scott Rose" <scottr@nist.gov>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
> [mailto:owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf Of David Blacka
>
> Let's approach this issue from the opposite direction.  Is there any
> reason NOT to prepend the private alg. name to the DS hash?  Was the
> fact that the DS wasn't mentioned in the private algorithm appendix ON
> PURPOSE?
>
> I am personally of the opinion that the fact that the DS was omitted was
> just an oversight, due to the fact that no one really examined private
> algorithms during the main review process.  I am of the opinion that NOT
> fixing this means, at the very minimum, that private algorithm support
> will be harder than necessary to implement in the validator.  It *may*
> mean that private algorithms are unusable or at least unsafe.
>

It was an oversight.  Private algorithms were not really brought up enough
during the rewrite process.

Scott

>


--
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/>