Re: NIST publishes new DSA draft

[Ian G <[e-mail]>]

David Shaw wrote:
>>We might want to think about making SHA-256 be another MUST algorithm.
>>The only MUST hash now is SHA-1.  Making SHA-256 be a MUST would make
>>these new key sizes be more useful, and also give us an easier fallback
>>if SHA-1 should be broken.
> 
> 
> Unless DSA2 is also a MUST, I wonder what the practical advantage to
> that would be (beyond making the social point that we really, really
> want people to move away from SHA-1).


I think this is pretty much all of the point.  Any
new DSA signing method or other usage will likely
be non-obligatory, but pushing the implementations
into that direction seems useful.

> right answer.  Now that we have actual information about DSA2, perhaps
> it would be worth revisiting that question.  A new algorithm ID for
> DSA2 resolves a number of problems in one fell swoop as there is no
> expectation of interoperability.  SHA-256 is always usable
> (effectively the default) for DSA2, and there is no problem with
> knowing when it is possible to use truncation (always).

Sounds good to me.

iang