Subject: DNSSEC-RECORDS ISSUE: DSA from Mandatory to Optional

From: "Olaf M. Kolkman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 13:16:31 +0200

I want to point attention to draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-records-04 section 1.3.1

1.3.1 Open Technical Issues

   The cryptographic algorithm types (Appendix A) requires input from
   the working group.  The DSA algorithm was moved to OPTIONAL.  This
   had strong consensus in workshops and various discussions and a
   separate internet draft solely to move DSA from MANDATORY to OPTIONAL
   seemed excessive.  This draft solicits input on that proposed change.

Please speak for or against this. 

Default action will be to accept DSA moved to OPTIONAL as working-group concensus. 

Review of this I-D and the dnssec-intro document is appreciated. 

-- Olaf Kolkman
   DNSEXT Co-Chair

--
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/>

--
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: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:21:17 -0700

>   I'm not sure if ElGamal is really different enough. Maybe 
> there are no such algorithms. 

Well as Dan points out fast factoring methods can be retargetted to be
discrete log problems.

I guess we could have some people go and define a DSA256 by taking the
principles of DSA and extending to a bigger key and a bigger hash algorithm.
It is a heck of a lot of work to do right.

I am sure this is not the place to do that.

	Phill