Hi, >> shouldn't draft-sheffer-tls-bcp-02 also give recommendations for clients on >> signaling minimum required hash functions >> via the signature algorithm extensions? >> > > maybe my post has been overlooked... Or is there simply no interest in this > aspect? > Shouldn't a BCP for TLS include an option to avoid SHA-1 in digital > signatures.
I am sure there is interest, but I am not so sure we've made up our mind on what to recommend. :) The BCP's scope is to make workable yet secure recommendations, so in order to suggest something other/better than SHA-1, I would like to have some data on what current implementations do already support and what they may support in the near future. At least on browser side, I think support for the SHA-2 family is pretty good, and auto-updates take care of the upgrading problem. Ralph -- Ralph Holz I8 - Network Architectures and Services Technische Universität München http://www.net.in.tum.de/de/mitarbeiter/holz/ Phone +49.89.289.18043 PGP: A805 D19C E23E 6BBB E0C4 86DC 520E 0C83 69B0 03EF _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
