At 6:54 PM -0500 3/24/06, Barry Leiba wrote:
Suppose the base doc said this sort of thing:
---------------------------------------------------------
... signers MUST use a=rsa-sha256 ...
. . .
This is a *very* bad idea. SHA-256 has been around for a relatively
short period of time. It has different block sizes than the other
hashes that have been analyzed over the past decade, it uses
different types of rounds, and so on. Mandating a single algorithm
that is new and fairly untested (even though it seems bigger and
stronger) is very, very risky.
We should stick with the wording agreed to in the f2f meeting (after
getting consensus on the list), namely:
At 1:10 PM -0800 3/20/06, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Receivers MUST implement SHA-1 and SHA-256
Signers MUST implement SHA-256
Signers SHOULD use SHA-256
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html