Re: [DNSOP] rfc4641bis: NSEC vs NSEC3.

[Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, Nicholas Weaver wrote:

> On Feb 23, 2010, at 6:26 AM, Todd Glassey wrote:
>> Sorry folks - but disclosure is the rule - so something about the potential hash collision needs to be in the document and there are liability issues for the people and their sponsor's involved who vote to keep these types of key factor's out of the work products because they dont want their documents soiled by 'statements that the lifetime of the Intellectual Property is limited' which is what putting anything about why the thing may not work does IMHO.
>
> SHA1 is 160B output size.
>
> Do you really expect zones with 2^80 entries in them (the point when the birthday paradox limit start mattering)?
>
> One in a septillion probabilities on human-scale items is zero for any reasonable value of zero.  There is no liability here.

The point here is that this is discussed on RFC5155 (or even
3174). 4641bis is not meant to incorporate everything. It's goal is to
provide a synopsis from our lengthy email discussions and previous RFCs,
and provide a pointer to 5155 for a full discussion.

4641bis provides a summary of recommendations with the main considerations,
not the ultimate list of theoretical end of the world possibilities.

Throwing 'Intellectual Property' in this discussion is troll fodder.

Paul