Speaking as a chair, and a fan of 8624, I would welcome a 8624-bis document to appear. (I think I expressed this to others than myself, but....).
The table in 3.1 is so clear in what to use and not use. And Paul W is correct if someone else creates a 8624-bis and then we can sort out the administrivia. tim On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 5:36 PM Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> wrote: > > > Sent using a virtual keyboard on a phone > > > On Aug 14, 2022, at 12:38, Wes Hardaker <wjh...@hardakers.net> wrote: > > > > Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> writes: > > > >> If only we had thoughts about this before, hey look RFC 8624. Why not > >> do a bis of that one ? (Yes I have thought about it as author, but I > >> don’t agree we can/should kill sha1 yet on the validation path) > > > > That's a possibility too, but then I'd have to fight the authors about > > whether to kill sha1 or not :-P > > Joking aside, the author on an RFC doesn’t get first dib on a bis > document. You can go and create one. When adopted, the WG decides on the > final text. > > Paul > > Paul > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
