ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] New IANA considerations: standards track or just RFC?

2007-01-24 14:44:11
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Jan 23, 2007, at 4:21 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:

I generally agree with "RFC only", but haven't thought about all  
eight of the registries that -base asks to have created.  It's not  
clear that we want to do this with all of them.  For example, we  
might want to set a higher bar for the signature or hash algorithm  
than for creation of a new signature tag.

To be something of a devil's advocate on this, why? A nice property  
of signatures is that there is pressure on the verifier either to  
create them maximally interoperably, or accept that some people won't  
be able to verify them.

As a verifier, if I start seeing signatures with a hash that I don't  
speak (or think is not secure), I just consider the message to be  
unsigned or bogusly signed. No problem.

        Jon


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Universal 2.5.2
Charset: US-ASCII

wj8DBQFFt9CXsTedWZOD3gYRAvrbAJ9ArQwGkCaQ82r1lF0cSek23ZlMwgCg4nV9
hAu3jpYEhVuCsk97udkOlj4=
=Syw/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html