Re: AD review of draft-moonesamy-sshfp-ed25519-01

Hi Stephen,
At 07:43 01-05-2014, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>I'm ok with moving ahead on the codepoint, but just one
>follow-up: if we do have 2 interoperable implementations
>could one of those maybe provide example public keys as
>they've hashed them (and a matching hash example of course).

I'll look into that and get back to you before the end of the Last Call.

>If that's easy then I think it'd be good to do even if
>there's no current good spec on the format. (I do expect
>we'll end up with one later, but could be a while all
>right.)

I'll get the information and you get to make the call. :-)

>I'll start the IETF LC now though and note this in that
>so's we're clear that we're clear if nobody comments on
>this during IETF LC (the IESG will defo. spot this:-)

Thanks.  Let's see what the IESG says. :-)

Regards,
S. Moonesamy