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

[Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>]

On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 02:24:10PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:

>         The only reason for having two numbers is if you believe
>         there there is a reason to support validators which can do
>         RSA/SHA-256 and not NSEC3.  I don't see a need to support
>         that combination.

I determined during working group last call, however, that others
_did_ see a need to support that combination.  Moreover, I buy the
argument that we shouldn't link these two issues together.  If there
is a validator that can't do NSEC3 and they find they suddently want
to do SHA-2, why do we want to put an extra barrier in their way?

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.

--
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/>