On 26/Apr/11 06:19, Hector Santos wrote:
While I agree with your version, if there is anything else to
reconsider it would be the last sentence:
However, compliant verifiers might not implement rsa-sha1;
they will treat such messages as unsigned.
That seems to say rsa-sha1
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Section 4.3 Hash method Note
The new rev 07 text has:
INFORMATIVE NOTE: Although rsa-sha256 is strongly encouraged, some
senders of low-security messages (such as routine newsletters) may
prefer to use rsa-sha1 because
INFORMATIVE NOTE: Although rsa-sha256 is strongly encouraged, some
senders of low-security messages (such as routine newsletters) may
prefer to use rsa-sha1 because of reduced CPU requirements to
compute a SHA1 hash. MTAs with compliant verifierst that do not
implement
My suggestion:
INFORMATIVE NOTE: Although rsa-sha256 is strongly encouraged
and should, in general, be used whenever possible, some
senders might prefer to use rsa-sha1 when balancing security
strength against performance, complexity, or other needs.
Compliant verifiers
-Original Message-
From: barryleiba.mailing.li...@gmail.com
[mailto:barryleiba.mailing.li...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 1:37 PM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Section 4.3 Hash method Note
On 4/25/2011 1:37 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
My suggestion: INFORMATIVE NOTE: Although rsa-sha256 is strongly encouraged
and should, in general, be used whenever possible, some senders might prefer
to use rsa-sha1 when balancing security strength against performance,
complexity, or other needs.
Dave further tweaks:
INFORMATIVE NOTE: Although use of rsa-sha256 is strongly encouraged,
some senders might prefer to use rsa-sha1 when balancing security
strength against performance, complexity, or other needs. However,
compliant verifiers might not implement rsa-sha1;
Barry replied:
Dave further tweaks:
INFORMATIVE NOTE: Although use of rsa-sha256 is strongly encouraged,
some senders might prefer to use rsa-sha1 when balancing security
strength against performance, complexity, or other needs. �However,
compliant verifiers might not implement rsa-sha1;
On 04/25/2011 01:57 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
Dave further tweaks:
INFORMATIVE NOTE: Although use of rsa-sha256 is strongly encouraged,
some senders might prefer to use rsa-sha1 when balancing security
strength against performance, complexity, or other needs. However,
Dave CROCKER's proposed text version:
INFORMATIVE NOTE: Although use of rsa-sha256 is strongly encouraged,
some senders might prefer to use rsa-sha1 when balancing security
strength against performance, complexity, or other needs. However,
compliant verifiers might not implement
The new rev 07 text has:
INFORMATIVE NOTE: Although rsa-sha256 is strongly encouraged, some
senders of low-security messages (such as routine newsletters) may
prefer to use rsa-sha1 because of reduced CPU requirements to
compute a SHA1 hash. MTAs with compliant verifierst that do not
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
On Behalf Of Hector Santos
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 4:39 PM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Section 4.3 Hash method Note
The new rev 07 text has
12 matches
Mail list logo
