IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-srose-dkim-ecc-00.txt

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sat, 08 April 2017 20:11 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FC22128B93 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Apr 2017 13:11:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_PASS=-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 3z1sw_huZFfY for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Apr 2017 13:11:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B592120326 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Apr 2017 13:11:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 65714 invoked from network); 8 Apr 2017 20:11:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 8 Apr 2017 20:11:32 -0000
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 20:11:10 -0000
Message-ID: <20170408201110.57805.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: tony@att.com
In-Reply-To: <363EDD8B-2654-4D81-AD41-D355599D3143@att.com>
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/dmarc/zLzP_vyrOiXmb_wr5eDr7vOkKEs>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-srose-dkim-ecc-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 20:11:35 -0000

In article <363EDD8B-2654-4D81-AD41-D355599D3143@att.com> you write:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>Right now we require support for two types of keys: a weak one (sha1) and a strong one (sha256).

True, but it's important to note that we don't require anyone to sign
with weak keys. A key record in the DNS can contain "h=sha256" to say
no SHA1 signatures accepted.  I've set my key records like that for
years.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email