RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-pkix-sha2-dsa-ecdsa-06.txt

[Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx>]

At 9:14 PM -0400 6/17/09, Tom Gindin wrote:
>        Would it be simple enough to just say that NIST SP 800-57 part 1
>table 3 implies that its authors consider the use of a given hash
>algorithm of the SHA family in digital signatures with an output length of
>2L bits to have roughly comparable strength (presumably against known
>cryptographic attacks) to the use of a symmetric key of L bits?  We can
>also say that NIST has given its own summaries of appropriate key lengths
>for use after a given date in table 4 of that same document, instead of
>referencing multiple long documents and expecting implementors to read
>them.

That definitely works for me, assuming that you mean "replace the SHOULDs and MUSTs" with the above wording.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium