Subject: [Dcrup] Draft agenda for DCRUP at IETF

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 16:10:25 +0000

We have 30 minutes in the agenda, but there seems to be nothing scheduled for the last 30 minutes.

Administrivia, 5 minutes
	Note well
	jabber scribe, minute-taker (there will be gifts)
	Introduction; charter tweak

John Levine, draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-crypto 15 minutes
	- To hash the key or not, that is the question.  Well one of them, anyway

Scott Kitterman, draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-usage 5 minutes
	- Changing RSA key size, moving to sha256
	- Still RSA PKCS1.5; do we need RSA-PSS?

 Scott Rose, draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-ecc 5 minutes
	- P256 ECDSA.

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 00:50:34 -0400

> We have 30 minutes in the agenda, but there seems to be nothing scheduled
...

> 	- Still RSA PKCS1.5; do we need RSA-PSS?

I will not be at the IETF meeting.  The only question that I think needs 
addressing is does the group want to pursue a separate draft that ups the 
minimum key size and moves to sha256 or would the group prefer to have it in 
one larger draft.

This part should be easy for the WG to dispose of.  If it looks like the group 
will come to closure quickly on the other issues, then we don't need this 
draft.  If not, then I think it makes sense to get this done and out of the 
way.

My sense over the last few days is that we aren't getting anywhere close to 
consensus that would make it reasonable to believe the other arguments will be 
wrapped up in short order and we ought to go ahead with my draft, but that's 
just one person's view.

I spend any of the meeting time on the exact content of the draft, if we 
conclude that the draft is needed, I don't think the content is particularly 
controversial.

Scott K

P.S. My answer to the RSA-PSS question is no.  RSA-PSS is only mandated for 
new implementations.  If we added RSA-PSS, we'd still have to support PKCS1.5 
and implementers would have to implement both for it to be useful.  Much 
better to focus implementation resources on new cryptographic algorithms.

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 07:37:53 +0000

> consensus that would make it reasonable to believe the other arguments will
> be wrapped up in short order and we ought to go ahead with my draft, but
> that's just one person's view.

And on co-chair's :)

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 06:06:26 +0200

> > that's just one person's view.

Two.  I just took an admittedly-brief look on relevant threads for evidence
that we have outstanding issues here, and I didn't see anything.  What
issues are you concerned about?

-MSK