> On Aug 10, 2022, at 16:07, Robert Moskowitz <rgm-...@htt-consult.com> wrote: > > > >> On 8/10/22 16:04, Paul Wouters wrote: >>> Robert Moskowitz <rgm-...@htt-consult.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I think I could have the IANA Considerations have a fix for 1 - 3 as >>>> well as add 4. >> Please do. I talked to IANA and they agreed this was the easiest solution. > > Should it be: > > public key > Public key > Public Key
My preference is Public Key but I don’t feel strongly at all - either of these are fine for me. > Here goes: Looks good, thanks ! Paul > > 4.1. IANA IPSECKEY Registry Update > > This document requests IANA to clarify the text in the "Algorithm > Type Field" subregistry of the "IPSECKEY Resource Record Parameters" > [IANA-IPSECKEY] registry to explicitly state this is for "Public" > keys: > > Value Description > Reference > > 1 A DSA Public key is present, in the format defined in [RFC2536] > [RFC4025] > 2 A RSA Public key is present, in the format defined in [RFC3110] > [RFC4025] > 3 An ECDSA Public key is present, in the format defined in [RFC6605] > [RFC8005] > > > Futher, this document requests IANA to make the following addition to > the "IPSECKEY Resource Record Parameters" [IANA-IPSECKEY] registry: > > IPSECKEY: > This document defines the new IPSECKEY value TBD1 (suggested: 4) > (Section 3) in the "Algorithm Type Field" subregistry of the > "IPSECKEY Resource Record Parameters" registry. > > Value Description Reference > > TBD1 (suggested value 4) [This] > An EdDSA Public key is present, in the format defined > in [RFC8080] > > ================== > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > IPsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
