IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Call for Adoption: draft-hardaker-dnsop-rfc8624-bis, must-not-sha1, must-not-ecc-gost

Philip Homburg <pch-dnsop-5@u-1.phicoh.com> Thu, 02 May 2024 12:10 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b538D2F77@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BC1EC15109F for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 May 2024 05:10:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nR5-11PUmaKX for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 May 2024 05:10:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [45.83.6.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1E05C151093 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 May 2024 05:10:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #158) id m1s2VGb-0000LcC; Thu, 2 May 2024 14:10:25 +0200
Message-Id: <m1s2VGb-0000LcC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Cc: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
From: Philip Homburg <pch-dnsop-5@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b538D2F77@u-1.phicoh.com
In-reply-to: Your message of "2 May 2024 07:43:53 -0400 ." <20240502114353.BDF8189EEF4F@ary.local>
Date: Thu, 02 May 2024 14:10:24 +0200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/tOggg6Qw2JKZJwqh9zIa60BeeEo>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Call for Adoption: draft-hardaker-dnsop-rfc8624-bis, must-not-sha1, must-not-ecc-gost
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 May 2024 12:10:31 -0000

>On the other hand, if it issued annoying warning messages every time it
>used a SHA1 key, I'd eventually notice and probably rotate the keys.
>
>I'm with Peter, I do not see a MUST NOT as requiring vendors or operators
>to do stupid stuff.

For my understanding, do you mean to say that if we publish that a signer
MUST NOT generate signatures using algorithms 5 and 7, then the signer can
just do that if it generates and annoying warning each time you sign?

To me that sounds more like a SHOULD NOT.

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status