On April 12, 2023 7:27:12 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri 07/Apr/2023 00:03:49 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On April 6, 2023 5:51:50 PM UTC, Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Thu 06/Apr/2023 00:54:15 +0200 Seth Blank wrote:
>>>> I don't feel strongly about N=10, but I do feel strongly that N=5 is
>>>> insufficient. My gut feel is that 6 or 7 is likely more than enough to
>>>> cover all real world examples, but it's a gut feel only and not backed by
>>>> data.
>>>
>>> IMHO we could rewrite the algorithm in terms of N (instead of 5) and N-1
>>> (instead of 4), and then say that N=5 is the value we currently consider
>>> good but recommend to make it configurable. Or we could leave the text as
>>> is (if it's easier to understand it that way) and just recommend to not
>>> hardcode "5" and "4".
>>
>> I don't think everyone picking their own N is going to promote
>> interoperability.
>
>
>It would, as long as subsequent standard revisions suggest different values,
>and people more or less follow. Compare with suggested/ recommended RSA key
>lengths.
>
I don't think that's an apt comparison, but even if it were, what's the
advantage of making the outcome of record lookups less consistent?
Scott K
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
