Pekka,
On Nov 9, 2005, at 10:49 AM, ext Pekka Nikander wrote:
The basic question is whether we should go forward with it, and if
so, where?
Could we last call it at the Internet Area, as the IPv6 chairs
indicate that they consider it a larger issue and not just IPv6
specific?
While I do think there are larger issues here, since this proposes an
allocation of IPv6 addresses I think it is important that the IPv6
working group review it. It would be good to talk to the Internet
ADs to figure out the best way forward (e.g., where to last call it,
etc.).
Thanks,
Bob
I would also get people's opinion whether SHA-1 is OK for the
document, as currently the proposed experiment is to end by 2009.
According to the discussion at security directorate yesterday,
SHA-1 is expected to be at the end of life by 2010. Consequently,
for most security protocols there will be two transitions in the
foreseeable future, first to SHA-256, and then to something that
NIST may be getting to within the next five years or so. Hence,
are we happy with going with (patched) SHA-1 with the expectation
that the experiment will end by 2009, and will also become unsecure
around the same time, or should we adopt SHA-256 from the beginning?
See also the previous discussion at the IPv6 WG, starting at
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg05627.html
--Pekka Nikander
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
