Re: [ietf-dkim] Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2

On Feb 25, 2006, at 1:56 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:

> 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?
agreed (modulo someone at IESG telling us that there's something
better to standardise on than SHA-256).

(although I might word the second paragraph "SHOULD use SHA-256,
MAY use SHA-1" rather than requiring them to support one or the other.)

(On a more general note. I'm not convinced it makes any sense at
all to specifically require a signer to support anything in particular.
It's one of those cases where validator support is the important thing.
Causes no harm, though, it's just redundant.)

Cheers,
  Steve

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