DKIM Crypto Update
charter-ietf-dcrup-02
Yes
Warren Kumari
(Alexey Melnikov)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Eric Rescorla)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
No Objection
(Alia Atlas)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Mirja Kühlewind)
(Suresh Krishnan)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
Warren Kumari
Yes
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2017-04-12 for -00-00)
Unknown
I aggree with Spencer's comments
Eric Rescorla Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2017-04-07 for -00-00)
Unknown
I'm a Yes, although I'm not the responsible AD, because this is the right thing to do. I wonder if you need to include this in the text: "The only current algorithm is RSA, with advice that signing keys should be between 1024 and 2048 bits. While 1024 bit signatures are common, longer signatures are not because bugs in DNS provisioning software prevent publishing longer keys as DNS TXT records." With a few re-reads, I can connect the dots between RSA -> more algorithms 1024-2048 -> I'm guessing guidance for longer signing keys? signature doesn't fit in a TXT record -> put it somewhere else that matches the three work areas in the updated charter, but that took a few re-reads, and the updated charter is at least as clear to me without those two sentences :-) At most, perhaps OLD "putting the public key in the signature and a hash of the key in the DNS" NEW "putting the public key in the signature and a hash of the key in the DNS to bypass bugs in DNS provisioning software that prevent publishing longer keys as DNS TXT records" to explain why the charter includes this part (adding algorithms and updating guidance on key lengths doesn't require explanation). But do the right thing, of course (and I am balloting YES even if you don't change anything).
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-04-12 for -00-00)
Unknown
Agreed with Spencer. I had to read this sentence multiple times. "The only current algorithm is RSA, with advice that signing keys should be between 1024 and 2048 bits. While 1024 bit signatures are common, longer signatures are not because bugs in DNS provisioning software prevent publishing longer keys as DNS TXT records." Please detail the milestones.
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-00)
Unknown