ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?

2006-02-23 20:39:04
When a 2048 bit key is to be handled, with the 'g=' parameter 
and a new hash callout, the space remaining is 93 bytes, 
assuming a domain with 4 labels with a selector.  From these 
93 bytes, 5 labels, the local-part and hash function must be 
defined where the average item size must be less than 14 
bytes.  When a binary DKIM Key RR is used, the remaining 
available space is 192 bytes, which then allows an average 
item size to be greater than 27 bytes.  This provides twice 
the available space, which is _not_ insignificant.  The cases 
where the DNS payload overflows would be much fewer.

Irrelevant, there is no space for a DNSSEC signature in either case,
unless DNSSEC itself supported either ECC or some form of signature
compression a la Schnorr.

There was not a suggestion to use a new binary record.  The 
proposal was to employ an existing record in a binary fashion.

It may exist on paper, it is not supported in the running code and
getting support is a long time off.

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>