[ietf-dkim] Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2

[Dave Crocker]

My proposal for language to cover supported text was confounded by suggesting 
some alternative language.  Discussion since then has frequently expressed 
agreement with my text, but even I am not sure what exact text folks are 
agreeing with.  I also think that Ned's point about the benefit of citing 
sender-side support, versus what is actually sent, is significant.

Based on all that, here is what I think reflects groups consensus.  Those 
agreeing should say something simple, like "agree".  Those disagreeing, should 
say something simple, like, "I proposal the following alternate text...".

Here goes:

    A validator MUST support {SHA-1, SHA-256}.

    A signer MUST support {SHA-1, SHA-26}.  A signer SHOULD use {SHA-256} for 
its higher security strength. However a signer MAY use {SHA-1}, such as for 
compatibility with an installed base, lower computational cost, or easier 
implementation effort.


Consensus?

d/


-- 

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>