The Security Considerations will still need to explain why they are
light enough that we aren't going straight to sha 256.
Tony Hansen
[email protected]
On 9/24/2010 2:53 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> But perhaps the easiest way to solve this debate was pointed out by Barry:
> The IESG would be unlikely to support a protocol with even light security
> implications that uses MD5 without a lot of research into why it's the best
> choice over other algorithms. So that's that. :)
>
_______________________________________________
dkim-ops mailing list
[email protected]
http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/dkim-ops
