[ietf-dkim] New Issue: 512 too short?

ietf-dkim

[ietf-dkim] New Issue: 512 too short?

2006-03-16 02:56:09


Section 3.3.3 includes 512 bit rsa as a MUST. I think that that
might be an error. Is there really any need for anything smaller
than 1024 in any case?

S.


_______________________________________________

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

[More with this subject...]

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
[ietf-dkim] New Issue: 512 too short?, Stephen Farrell <= Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: 512 too short?, Michael Thomas Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: 512 too short?, Stephen Farrell Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: 512 too short?, Michael Thomas Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: 512 too short?, Stephen Farrell Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: 512 too short?, Mark Delany Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: 512 too short?, Eric Rescorla Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: 512 too short?, Arvel Hathcock Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: 512 too short?, Paul Hoffman Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: 512 too short?, Michael Thomas Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: 512 too short?, Paul Hoffman

Previous by Date:	[ietf-dkim] New Issues: bunch of nits for base, Stephen Farrell
Next by Date:	[ietf-dkim] New Issue: some process-problematic references in base, Stephen Farrell
Previous by Thread:	[ietf-dkim] New Issues: bunch of nits for base, Stephen Farrell
Next by Thread:	Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: 512 too short?, Michael Thomas
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]