Subject: Re: DS & TCR clarifications

From: Sam Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 15:53:26 -0400 (EDT)

> TCR-04 retains types 253 (private, named) and 254
> (private, OID), but dropped 252 (indirect), 255 (reserved), and 0
> (reserved).

OK, I should re-read my own draft before posting: 0 and 255 (and 1)
are still reserved -- even so, why should the DS draft restrict using
them?

-- Sam

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Sam Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 15:54:45 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Sam Weiler wrote:

> 2a) Are the mnemonics in records-04, section A.1 correct?  (Some
> algorithms need to be removed, but are the mnemonics correct?)

Answering my own question, since no one else has: no.

records-04 also removed the mnemonics for the flags and protocol
fields.  Is that intentional?

RFC2535 section 7 says:
        Value  Symbol

        001    RSAMD5
        002    DH
        003    DSA
        004    ECC
        252    INDIRECT
        253    PRIVATEDNS
        254    PRIVATEOID

RFC3110 does not define a mnemonic for RSA/SHA-1

The current draft (records-04) says:

   VALUE   Algorithm [mnemonic]       RFC          STATUS
   0      Reserved                    -            -
   1      RSA/MD5 [RSA/MD5]           RFC 2537     NOT RECOMMENDED
   2      Diffie-Hellman [DH]         RFC 2539     OPTIONAL
   3      DSA [DSA]                   RFC 2536     OPTIONAL
   4      elliptic curve [ECC]        TBA          OPTIONAL
   5      RSA/SHA1 [RSA/SHA1]         RFC 3110     MANDATORY
   6-251  available for assignment    -
   252    reserved                    -
   253    private [PRIVATE_DNS]       see below    OPTIONAL
   254    private [PRIVATE_OID]       see below    OPTIONAL
   255    reserved                    -

So the mnemonics for 1 (which is "reserved" in the new registry
anyway), 253, and 254 aren't the ones in 2535, and there never was a
mnemonic for RSA/SHA1.

-- Sam

---

From: Sam Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 11:51:32 -0400 (EDT)

Next question:

records-04 lists the algorithm status (optional, mandatory, not
recommended)  along with the parameter values and mnemonics.  Should
that in the registry, too?

Also, we need a mnemonic for RSA/SHA-1 (for presentation formats).
Make suggestions, or I'll invent one.

-- Sam

---

From: Sam Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:43:09 -0400 (EDT)

> that in the registry, too?

Again, answering my own question: no.  Rather, the TCR draft shouldn't
do that.  It's not in the registry now, we're getting by just fine,
and I don't want the TCR draft to have to tackle the DSA
mandatory/optional thing.  If DNSSECbis wants to add status as a
column in the registry, that's wonderful.

Look for a new -05 that retains SIG and KEY for TKEY (sigh), renames
the new registries (IESG request), and adds mnemonics to the new
registry.

-- Sam

---

From: Jakob Schlyter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:32:42 +0200 (CEST)

> Make suggestions, or I'll invent one.

RSASHA1

	jakob