On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 04:45:31PM +0200, Werner Koch wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 09:01:37 -0400, David Shaw said:
So at least from the graceful failure perspective in GnuPG, it doesn't
really matter much which way we go. I prefer the first option (using
the current algorithm number) since it seems cleanest in both code and
However this does also means that another hash algorithm needs to be a
MUST algorithm - unless we limit the MUST support for DSA to 1024 bits
keys.
Yes. I'm not against limiting the MUST support to 1024/160 DSA.
David