On 22/11/14 13:16, Leif Johansson wrote: > On 2014-11-21 17:24, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> On Nov 20, 2014, at 9:40 PM, Joseph Salowey <[email protected]> wrote: >>> "The named curve registry contains 160-bit elliptic curves which are >>> considered to be roughly equivalent to only an 80-bit symmetric key >>> [ECRYPT-II]. The use of curves of less than 192-bits is NOT RECOMMENDED." >>> >> >> Good catch, and this should be added to the text. >> >>> In the last paragraph the use of the term fingerprint seems odd and perhaps >>> misleading. I think the term hash algorithm would be better: >>> >>> "the use of the SHA-256 hash algorithm is RECOMMENDED" >> >> Yep. > > Still only one voice of support for this change. Consensus is rough to > the point of almost being absent.
I think the changes above are fine to make if changes are being done. I didn't post before because I thought they should be uncontroversial not because I didn't support the changes. (And I'd also trust you chairs to identify such uncontroversial changes without each one getting a load of +1's - if you judge them so and say that to the list, then we get a chance to object if we think you've called it wrong. And then there's IETF LC etc. afterwards anyway.) S. > > Any strong opinions from the authors? AFICT this is the final issue > before we close the WGLC > > Cheers Leif > > _______________________________________________ > Uta mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta > > _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
