Subject: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-rsasha256-05

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:43:26 -0400

Dear colleagues,

Although it is one week later than we indicated at the Dublin meeting,
this message starts a four week working group last call for "Use of
SHA-2 algorithms with RSA in DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource Records for
DNSSEC".  The latest draft, and the history of the document, can be
found at
<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dnsext/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-rsasha256/>.

The docment is intended for the standards track, and if adopted will
become a Proposed Standard.

Please read the document carefully.  Please send any remarks you have
about the draft to the working group mailing list.  

The document process rules for this working group require that they
have read the document, and that there be consensus that the document
be published as a standards track document, with a target status of
Proposed Standard.

The last call ends at 2008-09-11 17:00 EDT.

Best regards,

Andrew (for the chairs)

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
+1 503 667 4564 x104
http://www.commandprompt.com/

--
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: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:42:41 -0700

Two minor issues with references:

- There is no reason to have the [SCHNEIER-1996] reference: pointing 
directly to RFC 3447 for "familiarity with RSA" is sufficient.

- The reference to RFC 4641 for determining key size should be 
removed. The problems with the crypto in RFC 4641 is being discussed 
in the DNSOPS WG, NIST SP 800-57 is still an excellent reference on 
key sizes.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Scott Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:09:02 -0400

> about the draft to the working group mailing list.  

I have read the document and I support the draft progressing along the
standards track.

However, I agree with Paul Hoffman's comment that the reference to RFC
4641 for key sizes should be dropped.  Especially considering that DNSOP
WG has opened it up for revision.

Scott

-- 
----------------------------------------
Scott Rose            Computer Scientist
NIST
ph: +1 301-975-8439
[email-masked]

http://www-x.antd.nist.gov/dnssec
http://www.dnsops.gov/
-----------------------------------------