[RSSAC Caucus] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Ext] Re: FOR REVIEW: RSSAC Statement on IANA's Proposal for Future Root Zone KSK Rollovers

[Stephenson, Ryan M CIV DISA IE (USA)]

Looks like NIST.SP.800-81-2.pdf uses key size and RFC 6781 uses key length.  I would use with the RFC.

-----Original Message-----
From: rssac-caucus <rssac-caucus-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman
Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 10:36 AM
To: Andrew McConachie <andrew.mcconachie at icann.org>
Cc: RSSAC Caucus <rssac-caucus at icann.org>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [RSSAC Caucus] [Ext] Re: FOR REVIEW: RSSAC Statement on IANA's Proposal for Future Root Zone KSK Rollovers

On Jan 9, 2020, at 7:33 AM, Andrew McConachie <andrew.mcconachie at icann.org> wrote:
> Ryan Stephenson asks a good question in the document about whether we should change the title of section 3.2 to "Algorithm and Key Length Changes”. 

If the group wants to mention sizes in the text, then it seems reasonable to add that to the section title.

> I have a somewhat related question. Is it better to talk of ‘key lengths’ or ‘key sizes’? 

Either is fine, and both are used nearly equally in the literature. I don't even know of anyone who argues "you should be saying 'length'" or "you should be saying 'size'".

--Paul Hoffman
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5453 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rssac-caucus/attachments/20200109/59d1587f/smime.p7s>