Re: [dnsext] Adopting draft: draft-hoffman-dnssec-ecdsa-04.txt

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <[e-mail]>]

Paul and all,


-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>
>Sent: Jan 5, 2011 12:56 PM
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [dnsext] Adopting draft:  draft-hoffman-dnssec-ecdsa-04.txt
>
>On 1/5/11 10:39 AM, Chris Thompson wrote:
>> On Jan 5 2011, Edward Lewis wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to see this stated in DNS terms - i.e., the notion of
>>> strength is not one of them.
>>>
>>> I would suggest that
>>>
>>> - the authoritative set of the DS record SHOULD include a DS RR for
>>> each key that is of the same hash algorithm as is used in the key and
>>> MAY have other hashes (and MAY even have only other hashes[1])
>>>
>>> [1] The parenthetical comment is redundant, put it there for emphasis.
>>>
>>> - a validator SHOULD prefer the DS record of the same hash algorithm
>>> over other hash algorithms for a key.
>>
>> You mean that a validator should prefer a digest type 1 (SHA-1) DS over
>> a type 2 (SHA-256) DS if the key to be validated uses algorithm RSASHA1?
>> This directly contradicts the SHOULD in RFC 4509 section 3, and also
>> doesn't seem too sensible to me.
>
>Thank you, Chris. I knew that someone had said something about strengths 
>in an RFC, but I could not remember where. You nailed it.
>
>That's not to say that we should have equivalent wording in this 
>document, just that the "cannot say anything about strength" is a new 
>requirement that is not met by earlier standards-track documents from 
>this WG.

  Why cannot there be anything about strength as a new requirement that
is not yet met by earlier standards-track diocuments?  
>_______________________________________________
>dnsext mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

Kindest regards,
Jeffrey A. Williams
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very
often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability
depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
Network security Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security,
IT/information security.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 
E-Mail [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]