My proposal for language to cover supported text was confounded by suggesting
some alternative language. Discussion since then has frequently expressed
agreement with my text, but even I am not sure what exact text folks are
agreeing with. I also think that Ned's point about the benefit of citing
sender-side support, versus what is actually sent, is significant.
Based on all that, here is what I think reflects groups consensus. Those
agreeing should say something simple, like "agree". Those disagreeing, should
say something simple, like, "I proposal the following alternate text...".
Here goes:
A validator MUST support {SHA-1, SHA-256}.
A signer MUST support {SHA-1, SHA-26}. A signer SHOULD use {SHA-256} for
its higher security strength. However a signer MAY use {SHA-1}, such as for
compatibility with an installed base, lower computational cost, or easier
implementation effort.
Consensus?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html