[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ipsec
Subject:    Re: [IPsec] [saag] AD review of draft-moskowitz-ipsecme-ipseckey-eddsa-02
From:       Robert Moskowitz <rgm () labs ! htt-consult ! com>
Date:       2022-11-07 15:24:18
Message-ID: ef5bf099-46dc-a45b-45d7-9a98285dfcd3 () labs ! htt-consult ! com
[Download RAW message or body]



On 11/7/22 09:07, Tero Kivinen wrote:
> Robert Moskowitz writes:
>>> 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.
> Yes. For example IKEv2 Transform Type 4 registry has section numbers
> for Recipient Tests:
>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/ikev2-parameters/ikev2-parameters.xhtml#ikev2-parameters-8
>
>> We would need to get IANA signoff on this, IMO.
With this presedent, I will follow what is in this registry, e.g.:

      [RFC6989], Sec. 2.1

Bob


_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]