Hi,
I'm full supporting this document, as it clarifies the grey area between
"validators MUST take any valid path" and "signers MUST sign will all
algorithms in DS set", and simplifies algorithm roll-over, while
enabling so far impossible operational modes like different-algorithm
multi-signer.
Regarding the specific "TL;DR" motivational section, I consider it
comprehensible and helpful.
I'm looking forward for this document to move forward.
Libor
On 21. 10. 25 11:21, Peter Thomassen wrote:
Hi,
We've updated draft-huque-dnsop-multi-alg-rules yesterday (mostly
editorial/clarity fixes).
A significant addition though is the insertion of new Section 1,
called "tl;dr: Nutshell Proof of Sanity".
Without going into solution details, this section is trying to
establish a baseline understanding of why the proposed adjustment of
validation rules is neither far-fetched nor dangerous, but actually a
very natural refinement.
You can read the tl;dr here, it's pretty short:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-huque-dnsop-multi-alg-rules-07.html#name-tldr-nutshell-proof-of-sani
Note that the proposal does NOT change anything for validators which
follow algorithm support requirements. It only affects validators with
a local policy to not support a mainstream algorithm which they would
be expected to support. The goal is to adjust things slightly, to
handle this case more gracefully.
The authors would like to encourage discussion about this baseline
objective (without going into the "how" of the proposal).
We'd like to hear both support for and technical objections to the
Nutshell Proof of Sanity, so we can put subsequent work on more solid
footing.
Thanks!
Cheers,
Peter
(for the co-authors as well)
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
