Hello Stephen,
authors of the draft have just published -09 revision. In the new
text we addressed comments you raised, in particular we deprecated
RSA-SHA1 and made RSA-SHA256 as mandatory implementation algorithm.
---
Anton
On Thursday 27 October 2016 14:44, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-08: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-ddt/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
6.4.1: RSA-SHA1 is not the right choice today, shouldn't
this be RSA-SHA256?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- 6.4.1: Can you clarify what bits are signed? I'm not
quite sure from the description given - you can have
more than one signature but you say the the "entire
record" is covered.
- Section 8: Where's signature validation in the
pseudo-code?
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
