Re: [Dcrup] Is there anything this WG wants to do not yet in draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-crypto-01 ?

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Tue, 20 June 2017 19:24 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 5094A131608 for <dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 12:24:15 -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 zdrT6UTkAt8M for <dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 12:24:13 -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 A9A5913160D for <dcrup@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 12:24:13 -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 7381CC400E6 for <dcrup@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 14:24:12 -0500 (CDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=201409; t=1497986652; bh=TfJgUgR3QhrX4oqWB8CeHd0tjMKyR4Z2I2yBTYHDR6o=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=h6DGYtLV6iijO0Eb0aY321+cIGwQR3+5e87jUFa90i1KW7IciQlneSNNzUu5tiLva 0v2KMUGXbp15Cqp8QbGCH1Q++wcQvTIvazfbUusYhPjx4pFozw3Dai6urJUjFIuh6v EyMpWd/bvKj6ZHth1jx6kYVzjOAlX/EiPHSl4Lvo=
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: dcrup@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 15:24:11 -0400
Message-ID: <10416754.S7IJN86VGL@kitterma-e6430>
User-Agent: KMail/4.13.3 (Linux/3.13.0-119-generic; KDE/4.13.3; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <c05aa9933039406d8401c1b1ca95437c@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com>
References: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1706121103510.19565@ary.local> <20170619205309.10839.qmail@ary.lan> <c05aa9933039406d8401c1b1ca95437c@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/HU4w4G0idS0H8jrr3DzxSH38SSA>
Subject: Re: [Dcrup] Is there anything this WG wants to do not yet in draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-crypto-01 ?
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: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 19:24:15 -0000

On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 12:38:45 PM Salz, Rich wrote:
> > Not to nag or anything, but I think this draft addresses everything in the
> > WG's charter, assuming the charter is adjusted to deprecate SHA-1.
> > 
> > Could people take a look and see if you agree?  If so we could move it to
> > last call and be within hailing distance of wrapping things up.
> 
> Let me be more "official"
> 
> Once the charter change is approved (Murray is working on that with
> Alexsey), I'd like to put this into WGLC.  Any concerns?

This is no doubt reasonably obvious, but for clarity:

I think it's still not clear where the group lies on how dead we should kill 
rsa-sha1.  I think the WG chairs are going to have to evaluate the consensus 
and let us know.  Once that's done, converging on the correct wording should 
be ~easy (whether it ends up in my draft or John's).

Scott K