On Jan 9, 2020, at 10:22, Andrew McConachie <andrew.mcconachie@icann.org<mailto:andrew.mcconachie@icann.org>> wrote: On Jan 9, 2020, at 00:46, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org<mailto:paul.hoffman@icann.org>> wrote: I worry that, as written, there is ambiguity. Is RSSAC requesting a single study that would evaluate both alg roll and length change? or separate studies? Would a single study on length change only satisfy the recommendation (since it says "or")? The latter was what I intended, but I see where there is ambiguity. Better wording might be "... studying and documenting a comprehensive approach to an algorithm rollover, or to a key length change, …” I’ve included this suggested text in the document. <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U1qKPRx9URRfiI4jijvLKSCS2W6upZRDppUsbANq... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1U1qKPRx9URRfiI4jijvLKSCS2W6upZRDppUsbANqIOg_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=KNEpS67O2txk54bIz-1lXP0tI5Rmtg88Ogwh6PVSGXJyTMuY0E2SHr70jrG3fGLJ&m=dQ6gmRar1KdTywAiZ5V_uJlY6H2L-rolaSJxgqTCVbk&s=oVxBbf-vWt3sLnbjqZLY3OpARR1n8TrEJezin_0Du9E&e=>> 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”. I have a somewhat related question. Is it better to talk of ‘key lengths’ or ‘key sizes’? —Andrew