Re: AD review of draft-moskowitz-ipsecme-ipseckey-eddsa-02

On 11/7/22 06:30, Tero Kivinen wrote:
> Robert Moskowitz writes:
>>> Value  Description
>>>
>>> 1    A DSA Public Key is present, in the format defined in [RFC2536]
>>> 2    A RSA Public Key is present, in the format defined in [RFC3110]
>>> 3    An ECDSA Public Key is present, in the format defined in [RFC6605]
>> I can remove the reference column?  It seems this is always called for.
>> So either we accept the build errors that still result in a usable
>> draft, or we make these entries two lines like:
> How about we cut the "is present" text. I do not think it gives any
> useful information. I mean if there is key in format defined in some
> rfc in this RR, then yes, the key is present, we do not need to repeat
> that.
>
> 0    No key is present
> 1    A DSA Public Key in the format defined in [RFC2536]
> 2    A RSA Public Key in the format defined in [RFC3110]
> 3    An ECDSA Public Key in the format defined in [RFC6605]
>
> Or we could even split the reference and format in different columns:
>
> Value  Description     	   	Format description	Reference
> 0      No key is present				[RFC4025]
> 1      A DSA Public Key		[RFC2536] Section 2	[RFC4025]
> 2      A RSA Public Key 	[RFC3110] Section 2	[RFC4025]
> 3      An ECDSA Public Key	[RFC6605] Section 4	[RFC4025]
> TBD1   An EdDSA Public Key	[RFC8080] Section 3	[ThisRFC]
>
> Adding the section numbers would be useful, as those documents define
> both DNSKEY and RRSIG resource records, so pointing to one of them
> helps.
I like this second way.  Does including the sec occur in any other 
registries?  We will have to ask IANA; it does make sense as you say in 
this specific case.

We would need to get IANA signoff on this, IMO.

_______________________________________________
saag mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag