Hi Evan

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 08:48:16PM +0000, Evan Hunt via RT wrote:
> On Mon Aug 21 01:51:38 2017, muks wrote:
> > Don't introduce the RSA256 and RSA512 mnemonics as 256 and 512 are
> > associated with SHA-2 family of hash functions and are confusing with
> > just RSA.
> 
> Fair point. My thought was, even though there's no standards support for
> abbreviations, it would improve usability with the longer and harder-to-
> remember algorithm names, but you're right those are ambiguous and should
> go. I've pushed that change now.
> 
> Are you okay with ECDSA256 and ECDSA384, though? I find the full expansions
> of those algorithms almost impossible to remember and usually have to look
> them up and then cut and paste.  But if you object I'll remove the abbreviations
> for those as well.

In the case of ECDSA algorithms, the hash output and public key sizes
match. I'm not pushing it, but if you ask for my opinion, I'll say just
stick to the IANA table mnemonics.

There could be an ECDSA SHA-3 combination with matching sizes again, to
prepare if something happens to SHA-2, but it's unlikely there'll be any
other combinations.

An admin looking to use these would look for the standard algorithm
mnemonic instead of a BIND specific one. If short forms are desired,
better to ask for it on dnsop@ and get more opinion on it, and it will
also be the same across implementations if it gets into the table.

Anyway you're aware of what the concern is, so use your judgement. :)

		Mukund