Yeah, me too. Same conclusion, and same assumption.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arvel Hathcock wrote:
>> In that case I would suggest that we make SHA256 a MUST support for
>> signature verifiers and a SHOULD for signature generators.
>>
>> SHA-1 should probably also be a MUST for verifiers and a SHOULD for
>> signers.
>
> For the record, I'm fine with this. I "felt a disturbance in the Force"
> so our implementation and library on sourceforge is already capable
> here. The only assumption I made was that the tag would end up being
> a=rsa-sha256.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://dkim.org/ietf-list-rules.html
