Philip Homburg <[email protected]> writes: > We have two sentences. The first decribes how RSHSHA1* is in active > use and has to be supported by validating resolver implementations. > > The second sentence says that operators have to disable support for > RSHSHA1*.
> I'm not sure who is going to be happy with this document. Software vendors > have to support algorithms that operators are instructed to disable. Why? That is correct and by design. Because we're in the process of switching it off, but not yet at the place where we can totally remove it from implementations. Thus, the guidance is to operators to say "stop using this" but for implementations, until the operators actually really finally do stop, it needs to keep its implementation status as available. This is an annoying state to be in certainly, but the alternatives would cause resolution failures for at least a small fraction of the planet. > There is another inconsistency that is not resolved. The IANA considerations > has the following: I read your description of the problem, but don't think there is one based on your description. So I'll come back and read it again later once I'm less jet-lagged. -- Wes Hardaker Google _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
