- From: Anthony Bryan <anthonybryan@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 01:05:07 -0400
- To: Alfred HÎnes <ah@tr-sys.de>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Alfred HÎnes <ah@tr-sys.de> wrote: > draft-bryan-http-digest-algorithm-values-update-00 says: > >> Known issues concerning this draft: >> >> o Current registry: MD5 lists both RFC1521 and RFC20456 for base64 >> encoding. Should this draft update it to refer to just one? > > Update: Yes. > To one of these: Nope. > Use RFC 4648 for base64 outside the narrow scope of email/MIME ! > (But triply cross-check the line length and folding requirements!) > >> o Current registry: SHA link ( >> http://csrc.nist.gov/fips/fip180-1.txt ) is no longer valid. >> Should this draft update it? > > Yes. (Increase the utility of the registry for its users.) > >> o If we update SHA in the registry, should this draft refer to SHS >> or RFC3174? > > If you want to be conservative, use RFC 3174; > otherwise point to the current version of the SHS, FIPS 180-3. > > Since the latter is a current standard, other WGs in the IETF > now are used to quote FIPS 180-3, e.g. PKIX, SMIME, TLS, etc. > > Doing so has the additional benefit of re-using the citation > needed for the SHA-2 family anyway, keeping the draft shorter! :-) > > > Btw: Can you avoid that weird line folding in the Ref. entry [SHS]: > > | <htt > | p://csrc.nist.gov/... Alfred, thanks for the help. Your suggestions have been included in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bryan-http-digest-algorithm-values-update -- (( Anthony Bryan ... Metalink [ http://www.metalinker.org ] )) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads
Received on Friday, 9 October 2009 05:12:41 UTC