Re: [Dcrup] Draft agenda for DCRUP at IETF
Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Mon, 10 July 2017 04:50 UTC
Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.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 8B0B81201FA for <dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Jul 2017 21:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com
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 MqKg2XE98awp for <dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Jul 2017 21:50:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [208.43.65.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA5F01200F3 for <dcrup@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Jul 2017 21:50:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kitterma-e6430.localnet (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 87918C4021C for <dcrup@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Jul 2017 23:50:34 -0500 (CDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=201409; t=1499662234; bh=JT/hMYgw5f23A8oycedtH0RrNvJU9WfrZ+y+yvMRtoE=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=GiaF71F3UX99kluwddiJn1zAxI1N4nHSccNyylycuyKQPPWk6AFebuB5+uuMa/UXb URYfSa7tnu7VPFHaO++yQ1nkJTjxWaHpV5dKiUAuouTAw0PD2wQErCgDFSbNZHZN6k 0b4VPJhNCvJcDxymokYW/9umPnm7bAJr7GlsB0zo=
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: "dcrup@ietf.org" <dcrup@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 00:50:34 -0400
Message-ID: <2111048.dxWtyJcX9G@kitterma-e6430>
User-Agent: KMail/4.13.3 (Linux/3.13.0-121-generic; KDE/4.13.3; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <d7887abb5729470aa17a918a4dabd789@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com>
References: <d7887abb5729470aa17a918a4dabd789@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dcrup/DibBBgRcPkIAWsaVBOGiqmOpO2Q>
Subject: Re: [Dcrup] Draft agenda for DCRUP at IETF
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: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 04:50:37 -0000
On Thursday, July 06, 2017 04:10:25 PM Salz, Rich wrote: > We have 30 minutes in the agenda, but there seems to be nothing scheduled > for the last 30 minutes. ... > Scott Kitterman, draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-usage 5 minutes > - Changing RSA key size, moving to sha256 > - Still RSA PKCS1.5; do we need RSA-PSS? I will not be at the IETF meeting. The only question that I think needs addressing is does the group want to pursue a separate draft that ups the minimum key size and moves to sha256 or would the group prefer to have it in one larger draft. This part should be easy for the WG to dispose of. If it looks like the group will come to closure quickly on the other issues, then we don't need this draft. If not, then I think it makes sense to get this done and out of the way. My sense over the last few days is that we aren't getting anywhere close to consensus that would make it reasonable to believe the other arguments will be wrapped up in short order and we ought to go ahead with my draft, but that's just one person's view. I spend any of the meeting time on the exact content of the draft, if we conclude that the draft is needed, I don't think the content is particularly controversial. Scott K P.S. My answer to the RSA-PSS question is no. RSA-PSS is only mandated for new implementations. If we added RSA-PSS, we'd still have to support PKCS1.5 and implementers would have to implement both for it to be useful. Much better to focus implementation resources on new cryptographic algorithms.
- [Dcrup] Draft agenda for DCRUP at IETF Salz, Rich
- Re: [Dcrup] Draft agenda for DCRUP at IETF Scott Kitterman
- Re: [Dcrup] Draft agenda for DCRUP at IETF Salz, Rich
- Re: [Dcrup] Draft agenda for DCRUP at IETF Murray S. Kucherawy