IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] RFC 2845bis and HMAC-MD5

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Thu, 14 March 2019 15:08 UTC

Return-Path: <dot@dotat.at>
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 2FCF31279E6 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 08:08:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eVfNH0jkipNH for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 08:08:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-33.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-33.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04F5F129BBF for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 08:08:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/email-scanner-virus
Received: from grey.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.57.57]:58846) by ppsw-33.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.139]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) id 1h4Rxs-000Tm0-gr (Exim 4.91) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Thu, 14 Mar 2019 15:08:12 +0000
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 15:08:12 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Martin Hoffmann <martin@opennetlabs.com>
cc: dnsop@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20190314155324.4841ce29@glaurung.nlnetlabs.nl>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1903141507190.13313@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <20190314155324.4841ce29@glaurung.nlnetlabs.nl>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/upraikMdJ8pxXZ9lxxMGYz0Yn14>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] RFC 2845bis and HMAC-MD5
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 14 Mar 2019 15:08:17 -0000

Martin Hoffmann <martin@opennetlabs.com> wrote:
>
> As such, I would like to propose to move HMAC-MD5 to optional and only
> retain SHA-1 and SHA-256 as mandatory.

That seems sensible. There should at the very least be a reference to
RFC6151, Updated Security Considerations for the MD5 Message-Digest and
the HMAC-MD5 Algorithms.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Shetland Isles: Variable 3 or less, becoming west or southwest 4 or 5,
occasionally 6 later. Moderate or rough. Showers. Moderate or good.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email