Subject: [Dcrup] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-usage-04.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 14:47:02 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the DKIM Crypto Update WG of the IETF.

        Title           : Cryptographic Algorithm and Key Usage Update to DKIM
        Author          : Scott Kitterman
	Filename        : draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-usage-04.txt
	Pages           : 5
	Date            : 2017-08-21

Abstract:
   The cryptographic algorithm and key size requirements included when
   DKIM was designed in the last decade are functionally obsolete and in
   need of immediate revision.  This document updates DKIM requirements
   to those minimaly suitable for operation with currently specified
   algorithms.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-usage/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-usage-04
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-usage-04

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-usage-04

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 17:49:55 -0400

On Monday, August 21, 2017 02:47:02 PM [email-masked] wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories. This draft is a work item of the DKIM Crypto Update WG of the
> IETF.
> 
>         Title           : Cryptographic Algorithm and Key Usage Update to
> DKIM Author          : Scott Kitterman

This is the same as the last diff I posted, except for one small change in 
Security Considerations where I tweaked the wording slightly to match the rest 
of the document now that we are merely saying don't use rsa-sha1 vice 
completely expunging it from the protocol.

Hopefully, this means we're done.

Scott K

---

From: Seth Blank <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 15:24:37 -0700

Scott,

I'm shepherding this document, and have two questions to complete the
writeup on -04:

1) Does this document conform to BCP 78 and 79? There is no listed IPR in
the datatracker.

2) The nits (
https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-usage-04.txt)
show a downreference to rfc8017, and some warnings/comments around RFC
boilerplate. Are you OK submitting with these warnings?

Once I have the answers to these questions, I'll complete the writeup.

Thanks,

Seth

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Dcrup mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcrup
>

-- 

Bringing Trust to Email

Seth Blank | Head of Product for Open Source and Protocols
[email-masked]
+1-415-894-2724 <415-894-2724>

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 22:40:28 +0000

>1) Does this document conform to BCP 78 and 79? There is no listed IPR

To the best of my knowledge, yes.

>boilerplate. Are you OK submitting with these warnings?

Yes.

Thanks,

Scott K

>> > directories. This draft is a work item of the DKIM Crypto Update WG
>of
>> the
>> > IETF.
>> >
>> Security Considerations where I tweaked the wording slightly to match
>the
>> rest

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 19:55:28 -0700

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> >2) The nits (
> >https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.
> org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-usage-04.txt)

The nit about the content of Section 7.3 is legitimate.  We should either
delete it now (my preference since it doesn't add anything), or change it
to something like:

--BEGIN--
7.3 Discussion Record

[[RFC EDITOR: Please remove this section before publication.]]

The content of this draft was discussed on the DCRUP working group mailing
list (mailto:[email-masked]), and the history of that discussion can be
found in its archive.

--END--

The nit about RFC2119 boilerplate is clearly wrong, and as long as Seth's
writeup mentions the downref, I think we're covered.

-MSK

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 00:20:40 -0400

> list (mailto:[email-masked]), and the history of that discussion can be

That's automatically added due to the discussion venue note (section 1).  When 
that's deleted per the existing note to the RFC Editor, 7.3 goes away 
automagically when passed through xml2rfc again.  I don't think we need to do 
anything.

> writeup mentions the downref, I think we're covered.

It's probably worth mentioning that RFC 3447 is an existing downref in RFC 
6376 that this draft merely updates to used the newer RFC since 3447 is 
obsolete.

Also, Seth wrote me privately to mention a typo (inclosed parens in the 
introduction).  I've fixed that in my personal git repo and will upload that 
with whatever comes next.

Scott K

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 22:25:40 -0700

> automagically when passed through xml2rfc again.  I don't think we need to

Huh, OK.  I haven't seen that added automatically before.

> 6376 that this draft merely updates to used the newer RFC since 3447 is

Yeah, I'd also suggest that Seth mention that in the writeup, but the real
issue is that the RFC8xxx is a downref that's not already present in the
downref registry.  Alexey just needs to add it, and in any case needs to
call it out in the IETF-wide Last Call according to procedure.

> with whatever comes next.

You can save any typos for the next revision, I think.  It doesn't need to
be sparkling just yet; we still have IETF Last Call to go through.

-MSK

---

From: Seth Blank <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 10:23:35 -0700

> call it out in the IETF-wide Last Call according to procedure.

I've updated the write up to cover this. I believe the write up is now
complete. Can the chairs confirm?

-- 

Bringing Trust to Email

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 17:48:44 +0000

Ø  I've updated the write up to cover this. I believe the write up is now complete. Can the chairs confirm?

The writeup looks good to me; let’s ship it ☺

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 12:42:31 -0700

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Salz, Rich <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The writeup looks good to me; let’s ship it J
>
>
It's away.

-MSK