IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dcrup] rsa-sha1 proposals

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 21 June 2017 16:35 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21A0412717E for <dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 09:35:37 -0700 (PDT)
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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 IN8g8Qgw84Lr for <dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 09:35:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (www.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::4945:4343]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52C9F128616 for <dcrup@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 09:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 31301 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2017 16:35:31 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 21 Jun 2017 16:35:31 -0000
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 16:35:09 -0000
Message-ID: <20170621163509.22309.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dcrup@ietf.org
Cc: sklist@kitterman.com
In-Reply-To: <19DDA93A-9A4F-44EC-9740-FF825DFF33FE@kitterman.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dcrup/27syr4j9BucxOlTq1NEV5B3O7fk>
Subject: Re: [Dcrup] rsa-sha1 proposals
X-BeenThere: dcrup@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: DKIM Crypto Update <dcrup.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dcrup>, <mailto:dcrup-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dcrup/>
List-Post: <mailto:dcrup@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dcrup-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcrup>, <mailto:dcrup-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 16:35:37 -0000

In article <19DDA93A-9A4F-44EC-9740-FF825DFF33FE@kitterman.com> you write:
>>The "higher coverage" verifier will most likely keep SHA1 simply to 
>>avoid any future support issues. Therefore, it would really help via 
>>policy to give the verifier what is to be expected.  The key "h=" 
>>protocol information should be updated to help in this area.
>
>I think just using the tag in key records operationally is all that's needed.

I agree.  That's exactly what the h= tag in the key record has always been for.

R's,
John

v2.45.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status