IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dcrup] FW: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-usage

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Mon, 14 August 2017 22:14 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 A1755132431 for <dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 15:14:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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 b-CSVO3tzLs7 for <dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 15:14:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [IPv6:2607:f0d0:3001:aa::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB80F132442 for <dcrup@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 15:14:04 -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 A6141C4031D for <dcrup@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 17:14:01 -0500 (CDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=201409; t=1502748841; bh=NsAzBzUmAVYa3C29J8U4b2rFh70zDzKjfelYnHuyxz8=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=kei2LkDJ0FoqjykHtogC2vlpfHL5oApoginDNnJO+Jy3XFCCI56dIa7UYQgOAaP7x J2wRJxJCS2Vxm029OfEtEdlKqc4MU0TxB9DSJlA1neEALCapKJfPFzV0f5X1Z5W7/K Mk+E3l2aLo2uWITzK95uiWLoe17pAYKygdmmY5Nw=
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: dcrup@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 18:14:01 -0400
Message-ID: <8695284.qrNCWkNy01@kitterma-e6430>
User-Agent: KMail/4.13.3 (Linux/3.13.0-125-generic; KDE/4.13.3; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwaLmYv3AMxWcNm-1DPHQK=Cbixg-G=Snjkwkbyef23MVg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <150257492983.26466.3488799276681870364.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAL0qLwZfp-=x806mQ91wkT5YHWeWuRT-eCKv8_VOOQtV7X4Mhg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwaLmYv3AMxWcNm-1DPHQK=Cbixg-G=Snjkwkbyef23MVg@mail.gmail.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/_YBZ5-1oGuf3l-Dih6O5pbc5Jm8>
Subject: Re: [Dcrup] FW: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-usage
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, 14 Aug 2017 22:14:07 -0000

On Sunday, August 13, 2017 06:19:48 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
> 
> wrote:
> >> I updated the ABNF in the draft because I think if we are going to kill
> >> it, we
> >> should kill it absolutely dead.  What is the benefit of retaining
> >> obsolete
> >> features that are MUST NOT use in the ABNF?
> > 
> > I think the intent is to reject those signatures as no longer acceptable,
> > not render them syntactically invalid.
> 
> Another way to look at this: I think it's more appropriate to render
> rsa-sha1 obsolete, but this approach seems as if we want to act like it
> never existed.

Fast forward a few years:  Is the fact that it ever existed relevant to 
anything?  I think it's highly unlikely.  

Since RFCs are forever, it'll never be like it never existed (people can 
always read old RFCs if they care), it'll just be like it's irrelevant to the 
current protocol definition.  I think that's appropriate.

Scott K

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email