Re: [Dcrup] AD review of draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-usage-04.txt

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On Thursday, November 02, 2017 03:08:15 PM Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017, at 01:29 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Scott Kitterman
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:>> That would leave the new language about
> > permanently failing tied only> 
> >> to rsa-sha1 and not also in key size. I would either split the second
> >> paragraph of 4.1 to put with insufficient key size in 4.2 (DKIM
> >> signatures signed with insufficient key sizes (currently rsa-sha256
> >> with less than 1024 bits) have permanently failed evaluation as
> >> discussed in [RFC6376] Section 3.9
> >> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6376#section-3.9>) or move the whole
> >> paragraph up into section 4.>
> > 
> > I think I like the first option.  Anyone else (and Alexey in
> > particular)?
> 
> Either is fine with me.

OK.  I'll have an update shortly.  There's also a word missing in Appendix A 
that I'll fix at the same time (this was reported off-list after I uploaded 
-05):

Appendix A, Line 194:

READS:
Thanks to John Levine his DCRUP work that was the source for much of

SHOULD READ:
Thanks to John Levine for his DCRUP work that was the source for much of

Scott K