Subject: [MMUSIC] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mmusic-4572-update-12: (with COMMENT)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 06:33:14 -0800

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mmusic-4572-update-12: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-4572-update/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I had two (or 4 depending how you count:-) things
I'd like to check here. They were pretty easy to
handle. (We more or less resolved this by mail.)

(1) section 5: I'm wondering if we have the right
set of hash functions here. Deprecating md2 and md5
is great, but I have a bunch of questions about the
others:

(1.1) why not also say that sha-1 MUST NOT be used
for new things (or similar)?

(1.2) do you really need sha-224 and 384? I think
nobody uses those at all.

(1.3) I'm a bit surprised you didn't add sha3 (and
maybe remove sha-512 if that's not needed) Even if
you don't encourage use of sha3, it might be good
to include it in the abnf now in case it gets
popular.

(2) Wouldn't it be a good plan to say that TLS
as-used MUST conform to BCP195? If not, why not?