Re: [Dcrup] FW: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-usage

["John Levine" <[e-mail]>]

In article <CAL0qLwaB8mdCbYjbzr6T3A5hQw3GnixuB=[e-mail]> you write:
>This document will be shown as "updates RFC6376".  Is replacing text in
>RFC6376 the right way to do this?  Or would that not be better left to an
>actual replacement document?  That is, why not just say "MUST NOT
>sign/verify with rsa-sha1", change the state of "sha1" to obsolete, change
>the minimum key size to 1024, and stop?

Having finally reread the draft, I agree, don't update the syntax.

It's fine if a verifier syntactically recognizes rsa-sha1 so long it
doesn't consider the signature to be valid.  Perhaps it could provoke
an SMTP response like 

  554 5.7.20 Fix your signatures if you want people to accept your mail.

Also, I think the status for dead codes is "historic" rather than
"obsolete" but that's up to IANA to make it consistent with other
registries.

R's,
John