Hi,I didn't see an argument that seemed like, "This is harmful," where harm was defined otherwise than, "It's in bad taste." I don't think bad taste is enough, and as I argued before, I think the precedent argument is bogus (and I'm prepared to meet it in future). Of course, we do not yet have an RFC, and if the issue is important enough to anyone to change, now would be the time to make loud screeching noises. I won't speak for Olafur, but I regard my role in this as being the instrument of the WG's will. I think I got it right, but I'm ever open to correction.
A -- Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com> On 2009-10-19, at 17:16, Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> wrote:
Andrew Sullivan wrote:On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 09:40:21PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:IANA could kill two birds with one stone by not assigning 8-11 "in theforeseeable future" and assigning something totally different to RSA/SHA{256|512}.Actually, in consultation with IANA, we've determined that we'll assign the identifiers in the 8-11 rangeI see based on http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers/dns-sec-alg-numbers.xhtml that the decision to use the numbers that were already shipped seems to have been finalized.