IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dcrup] I-D draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-crypto-06

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 22 November 2017 04:36 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 0F207129C30 for <dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 20:36:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 1ZT_JTF67Qc6 for <dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 20:36:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46414129C2F for <dcrup@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 20:36:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 55070 invoked from network); 22 Nov 2017 04:36:15 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.53) by gal.iecc.com with QMQP; 22 Nov 2017 04:36:15 -0000
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 04:35:53 -0000
Message-ID: <20171122043553.9264.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dcrup@ietf.org
Cc: jgh@wizmail.org
In-Reply-To: <00d888c1-64c9-9f26-0426-fbbb17fc5bdc@wizmail.org>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dcrup/uSQVQTS8PF9glkACwCYiyfCNF9k>
Subject: Re: [Dcrup] I-D draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-crypto-06
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: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 04:36:19 -0000

In article <00d888c1-64c9-9f26-0426-fbbb17fc5bdc@wizmail.org> you write:
>On 21/11/17 22:03, John Levine wrote:
>> Keeping in mind that you're responding to a message I wrote two months ago ...
>> 
>> In article <383fef94-84c4-9b54-5566-a6fa1279aa38@wizmail.org> you write:
>>> Wouldn't it be more aesthetically pleasing to decouple, for dkim
>>> a=ed25519-sha256 signing, the hash used for the body (sha256 as
>>> specified by the 'a' tag) from the hash used for signing headers
>>> (sha512, I think, but whatever the libraries have tied to
>>> Ed25519 signing)?
>> 
>> No.
>
>I think you need to further support your position.

You might want to review some of the 100 messages posted to this list
since the one you were responding to.

R's,
John

PS: look for the ones about many libraries don't plan to provide the
pure version of ed25519, and how we agreed to deal with that.

v2.27.8 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status