Dave Crocker wrote:
A validator MUST support {SHA-1, SHA-256}.
+1
A signer MUST support {SHA-1, SHA-26}.
IMHO unnecessary, "SHOULD use SHA-256" and "MAY use SHA-1"
are good enough as you have it here:
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.
All fine, but IIRC Stephen's concern was about the future
transition to another constellation when SHA-1 met Mr. Bond.
To emulate this, what would you say about CRC32 today ? Is
that "SHOULD NOT accept" and "MUST NOT generate" ? Or take
MD5 if CRC32 is too simple.
Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html