On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:29:00AM +0100, Alfred Hönes wrote: > (3) > I also concur with Andrew that having different requirement levels > in a fundamental protocol that does not allow negotiation of > crypto-algorithms also causes severe deployability concerns. I want to be perfectly clear: I did not say that; neither did I imply it. I don't know that I believe it. The statement to which I think you are referring was merely an attempt to focus the discussion opened by my esteemed co-Chair, thereby to make sure that we stick to the question of picking algorithm support levels _for DNSSEC_, and not in general. So I was pointing out a feature of DNSSEC that is different from at least some other contexts. For the record, I refuse to have a personal opinion one way or the other on what the IESG should do with the draft in question. I believe the WG decided to support its publication, and in my capacity as Chair I feel duty-bound to promote that support. I am not the shepherd for this document, however, and I have no stake in the outcome. Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxx Shinkuro, Inc. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf