Re: [Dcrup] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-ecc-00.txt
"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sat, 03 June 2017 11:13 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 599F6128B51 for <dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Jun 2017 04:13:16 -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 fZz0V8NzBnfr for <dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Jun 2017 04:13:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (w6.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 0FA7D128799 for <dcrup@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Jun 2017 04:13:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 30885 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2017 11:13:13 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 3 Jun 2017 11:13:13 -0000
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2017 11:12:50 -0000
Message-ID: <20170603111250.3799.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dcrup@ietf.org
Cc: scott.rose@nist.gov
In-Reply-To: <2D2E54E1-23A0-4470-85AD-F861770B10B1@nist.gov>
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/8CFP10HGh5v3zq6hLLN5MCumCKk>
Subject: Re: [Dcrup] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-ecc-00.txt
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: Sat, 03 Jun 2017 11:13:16 -0000
In article <2D2E54E1-23A0-4470-85AD-F861770B10B1@nist.gov> you write: >2. Included revised definition of key:value pairs for DKIM keys and >signatures. One thing I thought about: should the “k=“ in keys to >be mandatory now that RSA isn’t the only algorithm? Or leave the >default as is, so that anyone using ECDSA must use the “k=“ tag to >signal its use? It needs to be backward compatible, so no k= still means RSA. R's, John
- [Dcrup] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-ecc-00.… internet-drafts
- Re: [Dcrup] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-ecc… Rose, Scott
- Re: [Dcrup] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-ecc… Russ Housley
- Re: [Dcrup] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-ecc… Rose, Scott
- Re: [Dcrup] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-ecc… John Levine