Re: [Dcrup] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-usage-02.txt

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Fri, 09 June 2017 20:13 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 3C372128DE7 for <dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 13:13:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 CJ8a-MjjfVMa for <dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 13:13:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49DF5128D3E for <dcrup@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 13:13:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A58ED300494 for <dcrup@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:13:29 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id N8E7TqUn_cYl for <dcrup@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:13:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from new-host-4.home (pool-108-45-101-150.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.45.101.150]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 763EF300425; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:13:28 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <59890109.NLzkLIiF7F@kitterma-e6430>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 16:13:28 -0400
Cc: dcrup@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <08494F93-697D-4765-BAD9-BD4046340DC2@vigilsec.com>
References: <149690083334.25644.8501543904193079634@ietfa.amsl.com> <59890109.NLzkLIiF7F@kitterma-e6430>
To: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dcrup/JXUnEitF0wvMJc6-rm-FKccchvA>
Subject: Re: [Dcrup] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-usage-02.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: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 20:13:32 -0000

> On Jun 8, 2017, at 1:50 AM, Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, June 07, 2017 10:47:13 PM internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>> directories. This draft is a work item of the DKIM Crypto Update of the
>> IETF.
>> 
>>        Title           : Cryptographic Algorithm and Key Usage Update to
>> DKIM Author          : Scott Kitterman
>> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-usage-02.txt
>> 	Pages           : 6
>> 	Date            : 2017-06-07
>> 
>> Abstract:
>>   The cryptographic algorithm and key size requirements included when
>>   DKIM was designed in the last decade are functionally obsolete and in
>>   need of immediate revision.  This document updates DKIM requirements
>>   to those minimaly suitable for operation with currently specified
>>   algorithms.  This document updates RFC 6376.
> 
> There are only a few small changes in this revision.  I applied the diff I 
> posted in response to msk's suggestion about saying even less about rsa-sha1 
> and I filled out the acknowledgements with everyone who's commented about the 
> draft (if I missed you or you'd rather not be listed, please let me know).
> 
> Please give this revision a good review and based on the feedback to date, I 
> think it's pretty close to done.

I think the document is ready for WG Last Call.

Russ