Re: Request for a code point assignment for ED25519 - draft-moonesamy-sshfp-ed25519-01

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Jari,

I sent a message to the IESG yesterday (see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg87189.html ). As the wasn't any response from the IESG there might be a perception that the IESG isn't responsive to concerns when the matter affects OpenSSH code. For what it is worth OpenSSH is widely deployed. It is easy to assess whether what I wrote is true by looking at a few open source operating systems.

It has been stated that:

  'To break the deadlock, document authors often choose some "seemingly
   unused" code points, often by selecting the next available value from
   the registry; this is problematic because these may turn out to be
   different from those later assigned by IANA.  To make this problem
   worse, "pre-RFC" implementations are often developed and deployed
   based on these code point selections.'

I did not choose a "seemingly unused" code point (see draft-moonesamy-sshfp-ed25519-01). I followed what the IETF documentation says and the advice I have been given. I requested feedback from CFRG even though it is not an IETF Working Group. I could have objected to that given what has been said in the news.

According to RFC 2026:

  "If an individual should disagree with an action taken by the IESG in
   this process, that person should first discuss the issue with the
   ISEG Chair."

The problem is that the IESG has not taken any action. In my opinion it is constructive to be open to discussion.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]