Re: Review of draft-ietf-dnsext-ds-sha256-01.txt

[Mike StJohns <Mike.StJohns@nominum.com>]

Hi Wes -

I've reviewed the document and I'm fine with it going forward as is 
now especially given the security issues with SHA1.

BUT (and feel free to send me off to the corner if this was discussed 
prior), wouldn't it have made sense to either do the other two SHA 
standards (SHA384 and SHA512) at the same time  in the same document, 
or either as different algorithm types or having the subtypes encoded 
in the digest field?

Two nits
 - [SHA256] should probably just be [SHA] as it covers 1, 256, 384 and 512.
 - Should SHA1 be deprecated with the publication of this document?


At 01:03 PM 12/6/2005, Wes Hardaker wrote:

> I published the latest copy of the -ds draft a week ago or so (the
> announcement was sent to this list as well).  I'm now interested if
> there are any outstanding issues with the draft.  In particular,
> please review sections 3 and 4 which are the sections that changed the
> most based on feedback from the working group.
>
> In order for this document to go forward, it needs do be reviewed by
> at least 5 people (per recent discussion at the last IETF and on the
> list).  The WG chairs would like acks at least from 5 people that have
> read the draft.
> --
> Wes Hardaker
> Sparta, Inc.
>
> --
> to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
> the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>


--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>