Dave Crocker wrote:
> A validator MUST support {SHA-1, SHA-256}.
+1
> A signer MUST support {SHA-1, SHA-26}.
IMHO unnecessary, "SHOULD use SHA-256" and "MAY use SHA-1"
are good enough as you have it here:
> A signer SHOULD use {SHA-256} for its higher security
> strength. However a signer MAY use {SHA-1}, such as for
> compatibility with an installed base, lower computational
> cost, or easier implementation effort.
All fine, but IIRC Stephen's concern was about the future
transition to another constellation when SHA-1 met Mr. Bond.
To emulate this, what would you say about CRC32 today ? Is
that "SHOULD NOT accept" and "MUST NOT generate" ? Or take
MD5 if CRC32 is too simple.
Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
