Subject: Re: [dnsext] WGLC TSIG MD5 Deprecated

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 23:25:07 +0200

Paul Hoffman asked me to make this public:

[Me] I agree there is no crypto justification (even I talked two days ago
with some cryptographers who said things have changed since the
beginning of the year) but the operational justification still
applies: IMHO it is a real problem for a compliant implementation
(which have to support the mandatory HMAC-MD5) to not be allowed
to use a certified (FIPS 140-2 for instance) crypto module for
all crypto operations...

[Paul] Could you send this message to the whole list? I believe that
many people think there is a crypto justification, and it would be
good for them to hear this from the document's author directly.

Regards

[email-masked]

--
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: Federico Lucifredi <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 21:29:42 -0400

Thanks, this clarifies it for me.

 Best -F

-- 
_________________________________________
-- "'Problem' is a bleak word for challenge" - Richard Fish
(Federico L. Lucifredi) - [email-masked] - GnuPG 0x4A73884C

---

From: Federico Lucifredi <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 21:37:12 -0400

Best -F

---

From: Federico Lucifredi <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 21:27:21 -0400

[ Moderators note: Post was moderated, either because it was posted by
   a non-subscriber, or because it was over 20K.  
   With the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss and therefore 
   delete relevant posts by non-subscribers. 
   Please fix your subscription addresses. ]

 Best -F

-- 
_________________________________________
-- "'Problem' is a bleak word for challenge" - Richard Fish
(Federico L. Lucifredi) - [email-masked] - GnuPG 0x4A73884C