IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: DNSEXT WGLC: DS SHA-256

Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com> Wed, 04 January 2006 21:24 UTC

Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EuG7G-0008AV-0D for dnsext-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2006 16:24:18 -0500
Received: from psg.com (mailnull@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05032 for <dnsext-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Jan 2006 16:23:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>) id 1EuG1x-00049Q-0z for namedroppers-data@psg.com; Wed, 04 Jan 2006 21:18:49 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on psg.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS autolearn=no version=3.1.0
Received: from [85.158.136.35] (helo=mail125.messagelabs.com) by psg.com with smtp (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com>) id 1EuG1w-000498-A1 for namedroppers@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2006 21:18:48 +0000
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-2.tower-125.messagelabs.com!1136409125!9352275!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.9.1; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.189.100.101]
Received: (qmail 835 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2006 21:12:06 -0000
Received: from motgate2.mot.com (HELO motgate2.mot.com) (144.189.100.101) by server-2.tower-125.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 4 Jan 2006 21:12:06 -0000
Received: from az33exr02.mot.com (az33exr02.mot.com [10.64.251.232]) by motgate2.mot.com (8.12.11/Motgate2) with ESMTP id k04LTg11001916 for <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Jan 2006 14:29:42 -0700 (MST)
Received: from ma19exm01.e6.bcs.mot.com (ma19exm01.e6.bcs.mot.com [10.14.33.5]) by az33exr02.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k04LLqA4014118 for <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Jan 2006 15:21:53 -0600 (CST)
Received: by ma19exm01.e6.bcs.mot.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <VPH06P2C>; Wed, 4 Jan 2006 16:12:03 -0500
Message-ID: <62173B970AE0A044AED8723C3BCF23810C2880C8@ma19exm01.e6.bcs.mot.com>
From: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com>
To: namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: DNSEXT WGLC: DS SHA-256
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 16:12:02 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk

A new version of draft-eastlake-sha2 is not in the ID directory at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eastlake-sha2-01.txt.

Donald 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
Sent: Monday, December 26, 2005 11:50 PM
To: Wes Hardaker; namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: DNSEXT WGLC: DS SHA-256

draft-eastlake-sha2 is indeed a personal submission targeted for Informational, like RFC 3174.

I'm fine with the reference being Informative. The FIPS document is the normative specification of the algorithm.

I believe that it is, indeed, near completion and I will be uploaded an updated draft in a day or two.
Due to the problems with SHA-1, I believe it will be given some priority even though it is an individual submission.

Thanks,
Donald

-----Original Message-----
From: Wes Hardaker [mailto:hardaker@tislabs.com]
Sent: Monday, December 26, 2005 3:39 PM
To: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
Cc: namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: DNSEXT WGLC: DS SHA-256

>>>>> On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 18:08:32 -0500, Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com> said:

Eastlake> I support this document; however, I believe it should also 
Eastlake> reference draft-eastlake-sha2-*.txt which has source code for
Eastlake> SHA-256 (currently -00 but about to be updated to -01).

(I'm interested in other people's opinions)

Questions:
  Whats the timeline status for this document?  Is it near completion
  (on the order of weeks) or do you expect to have it advance by when?

  What track is it on?  Personal submission as informative?

  If the working group wants this, should to be informative or
  normative?

I think informative is right here (as the code reference isn't required, unlike the spec reference which must be understood).

--
Wes Hardaker
Sparta, Inc.

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

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email