Joe Abley wrote:
On 6-Oct-2006, at 06:01, Robert Loomans wrote:
In section 3.8 the draft uses normative language to specify key
sizes. Should it not instead specify *minimum* key sizes, or is it an
explicit goal to specify an absolute size? (Would it be bad, for
example, if I chose to use a 4096 bit key instead of the 2048 bit key
I SHOULD use?)
I believe there are concerns about the overhead of using unnecessarily
larger keys....
I'd like to understand that concern a little better.
I had the same concern a while ago - namely that 2048 should be a minimum.
At that time Stephen Kent pointed out that on the longer term he would
prefer to move to EC-DSA instead of RSA with larger key sizes.
Regards,
Robert
_______________________________________________
Sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
