Re: [dane] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dane-smime-04.txt

Viktor Dukhovni <viktor1dane@dukhovni.org> Fri, 10 January 2014 00:50 UTC

Return-Path: <viktor1dane@dukhovni.org>
X-Original-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E88CC1ADBE8 for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 16:50:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fK7dBOIQjEs3 for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 16:50:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mournblade.imrryr.org (mournblade.imrryr.org [38.117.134.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0D081ADBCE for <dane@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 16:50:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mournblade.imrryr.org (Postfix, from userid 1034) id 49DF72AB215; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:49:54 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:49:54 +0000
From: Viktor Dukhovni <viktor1dane@dukhovni.org>
To: dane@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20140110004954.GQ2317@mournblade.imrryr.org>
References: <89AE05E1-BC6C-46BA-A4CC-A8F29070096D@vpnc.org> <CEF43EFD.F8FB%bdickson@verisign.com> <20140109173943.GL2317@mournblade.imrryr.org> <m37ga9kkfs.fsf@carbon.jhcloos.org> <20140109205604.GM2317@mournblade.imrryr.org> <alpine.LFD.2.10.1401091922410.5593@bofh.nohats.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.10.1401091922410.5593@bofh.nohats.ca>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [dane] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dane-smime-04.txt
X-BeenThere: dane@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dane@ietf.org
List-Id: DNS-based Authentication of Named Entities <dane.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dane>, <mailto:dane-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dane/>
List-Post: <mailto:dane@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dane-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane>, <mailto:dane-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:50:08 -0000

On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 07:26:51PM -0500, Paul Wouters wrote:

> SHA2-224 would have my preference, as SHA1 is on its way out FIPS-wise
> and it is just easing not having to maintain SHA1 exceptions to the
> "disallow sha1" code paths.

I can live with HMAC SHA2-224.

> I think I'm fine with using sha2-224, if it saves us the hassle of doing
> label splitting. But still a little worried about hashing various
> character sets.

Email addresses are still (multiple failed[*] attempts at SMTP + UTF-8
addresses notwithstanding) US-ASCII strings.  One can canonicalize
these via the identity map to UTF-8 if one wants to pretend otherwise.

-- 
	Viktor.

[*] RFCs that nobody implements do not count as success.