On Jan 9, 2020, at 10:22, Andrew McConachie <andrew.mcconachie@icann.org> wrote:



On Jan 9, 2020, at 00:46, Paul Hoffman <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/1U1qKPRx9URRfiI4jijvLKSCS2W6upZRDppUsbANqIOg/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]> 

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