Re: [Dcrup] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-crypto-03.txt

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 12:53 PM, John R Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Given that (a) we already have algorithms that are bigger and (b)
>>> post-quantum keys might be quite a bit bigger, it seems unwise to design
>>> under the assumption that it will not happen.
>>>
>>
>> Well, OK, but concretely, what do you want us to do now?
>>
>
> I thought I made that clear: I think the default representation should be
> hashed, not unhashed.
>

I'd also be fine with having both representations, though I think it's
confusing. However, I don't think it's great to have just unhashed in the
future.

-Ekr


Right now, today, I don't see that hasned ed25519 keys solve any problem,
>> so I'm not going to include them unless there is something I don't
>> understand that they can do that plain ed25519 keys in the key records
>> don't.
>>
>
> Uh, the way this works isn't that the editor decides what happens and
> everyone needs to persuade him. Rather, the draft needs to represent
> consensus of the WG. Happy to talk about this in Prague, of course.
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>>
>> R's,
>> John
>>
>>
>