Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsext-ds-sha256-02.txt

[Wes Hardaker <hardaker@tislabs.com>]

>>>>> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 23:36:41 -0500, David Blacka <davidb@verisignlabs.com> said:

David> The use of MUST means that, if an implementation doesn't do the  
David> thing, something Will Not Work.  All of this language is about  
David> preferring SHA-256 to SHA-1.  This is a Good Idea, but none of this  
David> is necessary for interoperability.  Thus, SHOULD or RECOMMENDED is  
David> the appropriate level for the entire paragraph.

There is a really large number of RFCs that have MUSTs for security
related things.  That's because without them, security Will Not Work
(which then affects interoperability).

IMHO, it should stay as a MUST.  But...  I of course will follow the
consensus of the group.

Though in this case I think we're not that close to the point where an
attack is actually executable against SHA-1...

-- 
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/>