- From: Alfred HÎnes <ah@TR-Sys.de>
- Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 23:21:16 +0000
- To: anthonybryan@gmail.com
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
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 http://csrc.nist.gov/fips/fip180-1.txt ) is no longer valid.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/... Kind regards, Alfred HÎnes. -- +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes | Alfred Hoenes Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys. | | Gerlinger Strasse 12 | Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18 | | D-71254 Ditzingen | E-Mail: ah@TR-Sys.de | +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
Received on Wednesday, 7 October 2009 06:53:36 UTC