Re: private algorithms and the DS record

[Ólafur Guðmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>]

<Chair-hat-off>
At 12:13 22/12/2004, David Blacka
> Rob Austein wrote:
>
> I see four possible resolutions here:
>
> 1) DS records are modified to contain the private algorithm name, allowing 
> the validator algorithm to work the same for public and private algorithms, or
> 2) The need and algorithm for fetching the private algorithm name from the 
> DNSKEY in a safe manner is documented somewhere (another RFC or additional 
> text), or
> 3) private algorithms are deprecated, or
> 4) everyone else decides that the current text is clear enough, there is 
> no need to change anything, we are fairly sure that future implementations 
> of private algorithm support will work just fine, thank you very much.
>
> Any of the above resolutions are acceptable, I think.

I see #5
5) Remove special handling of Private Key's in RRSIG, i.e. do the same
thing as in DS and cementing Private algorithm's second class status.

Personally I think 2 is the most appropriate approach if this is
big enough a issue to warrant the attention of the working group.

        Olafur 


--
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/>