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

[S Moonesamy <sm+ietf%elandsys.com@localhost>]

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