IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-turner-md5-seccon-update-07.txt> (Updated Security Considerations for the MD5 Message-Digest and the HMAC-MD5 Algorithms) to Informational RFC

Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr> Wed, 08 December 2010 23:32 UTC

Return-Path: <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB1FA3A68BA; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 15:32:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.209
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.209 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jsktpA9uk+KS; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 15:32:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [91.121.26.85]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D7A43A6868; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 15:32:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oB8NXhhe067090; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 23:33:43 GMT (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr)
Message-Id: <201012082333.oB8NXhhe067090@givry.fdupont.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
To: "Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP]" <wesley.m.eddy@nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-turner-md5-seccon-update-07.txt> (Updated Security Considerations for the MD5 Message-Digest and the HMAC-MD5 Algorithms) to Informational RFC
In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 08 Dec 2010 14:08:03 CST. <C304DB494AC0C04C87C6A6E2FF5603DB4823358384@NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 00:33:43 +0100
Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
Cc: "wes@mti-systems.com" <wes@mti-systems.com>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk" <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 23:32:18 -0000

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   The logic doesn't make sense in this position.  "Crypto modules
   can't use MD5, thus no protocols at all should use MD5."
   
=> this is a silly/bad/... consequence of the crypto label
attached to the MD5 name. I understand you are not happy with
this but what do you propose?

Regards

Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr

PS: BTW I'd like to apply the argument only to *new* protocols.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email