Re: Call for consensus: Re: Reviving RSA/SHA256

[Edward Lewis <[e-mail]>]

At 10:01 -0400 9/24/07, Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT
  chair wrote:
>Dear Colleagues
>
>So far I have counted in support:
>Jelte Jansen (ed.), Olaf Kolkman, Scott Rose, Roy Arends, John Dickinson.

I think the work should be (re)written up.  I 
looked at the retired draft and would suggest 
that in somewhere it suggest that if a validator 
is able to make the choice between hashes, it 
chooses the strongest one.  (What if the strong 
fails and the weak fails? - discuss...)

Given that the group is alleged to be moribund, 
this work could be just individual except for the 
face that the WG bounced this before it died. 
Not sure what the ethical answer is here - and 
what does it mean for the WG to now give it a 
go-ahead?

>Mike StJohns wants to use this as an opportunity to rationalize
>how new hashes are added to existing Signature Algorithms.
>Mike also raises the issue of truncated SHA-256 hashes.

I'd like to see that written up before passing 
judgement - the hundred flowers sense.

>Other posters did not express support or argue against adopting
>the work, are there others that have an opinion on the adoption of
>this work please speak up before Oct 1'st 2007.

From what I gather from crypto experts, crypto 
has a short half-life.  There are going to be 
needs to update crypto stuff well into the 
future.  So, do we keep a  WG on life support for 
this?  Or do we just say "go ahead and build, use 
the IANA registry to record the definitions" as 
the protocol "framework" is done?  Is the right 
answer from the WG's grave to "go forth and 
multiply, tell IANA, we've taken care of all the 
other rules already?"  Or does the WG have to 
process and stamp all of this?

BTW, what's up with the RFC2929bis?
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                [phone]
NeuStar

Think glocally.  Act confused.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [e-mail] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>