Re: private algorithms and the DS record

[Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>]

--On 21 December 2004 12:27 -0500 David Blacka <davidb@verisignlabs.com> 
wrote:

> > (From a position of relative ignorance) yes I agree - assuming we are
> > confident we have infact bottomed the problem out as the worst thing
> > to do would be to half fix it.
>
> Perhaps I am now suddenly confused.  What is "half fix it"?

I'm not pointing out any great hole and I'm not saying what you propose
half fixes it. I am just saying if we rushed into getting EFC Editor to put
in a note to the effect suggested, and a short time later Ed came up with
another equally startling revelation saying "oops we didn't fix that hole
completely" we'd look a bit silly (and worse have rather confused
documentation).

The advantage of the I-D process is that it gets more peer review,
so it would be good to know, if we are going to go the RFC-Editor process,
that everyone thinks we've really fixed the hole, and that there's
no/little change peer review is going to point out a problem with the
proposed solution.

FAOD, from my ill-informed standpoint, fixing it as described seems the
right thing to do.

Alex

--
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/>