On 7 June 2018 at 15:33, Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-d...@dukhovni.org> wrote:
> > > > I hope it is now clearer why we are doing this? > > Well, I see that we end up with a bit less code-point diversity, > but in this case 8/10 are barely different and require the same > supporting code. So while I'm not strongly advocating 10, I see > it just a "tweak" of 8, and would expect to not differentiate > between them, use either, interoperate with neither or both... > > Again, this comment is not an objection just saying that I would > have treated 8 and 10 as interchangeable. > > Except that they are not interchangeable, and algorithm rolls are operationally expensive. Anyone doing an algo roll from 8 to 10 is less likely to want to do one again any time soon. Since there is little gain from moving to 10, it's better to discourage use of 10 in order to encourage–and make it easier for–operators to use their algo rolls to move to ECC instead.
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
