Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis-02.txt

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 09:54:36 +0100

In your previous mail you wrote:

>  Two points that I request this WG to discuss are:
>  
>  1. Sparsely TSIG signed TCP continuation messages (section 6.4 in draft)

=> I'd like to do this but it is not possible to change requirements
for existing implementations so easily. I added a SHOULD for signing
all messages so on the long term they should disapear.,,

>  2. Truncated MACs

=> first they are optional so not required to be implemented/supported.
Second I'd like to get the opinion from a cryptographer because I heard
that truncated HMACs have some security benefits. Last of course they
make messages shorter so have a clear operational advantage.
 Now I do not know if they are heavily used. If they are not we can consider
to add a NOT RECOMMENDED for their implementation/support even it is not
really in the scope of the document.

Thanks

[email-masked]