[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Signature format and smart cards


>>>>> "Paul" == Paul Koning <pkoning@xedia.com> writes:
    Paul> Why can't this wait?

    Paul> I tend to agree with Micheal that hacking up the protocol at this
    Paul> late stage is not desirable.  Given that there are devices that
    Paul> work with the spec as it stands, why the rush?

  I want to point out that even if there were a rush, the protocol provides
for extending the number of signature types by using signature ids 65001
to 65535. This can be without need of a vendor id, since a compliant
implementation will simply not accept that proposal. If there are alternate
proposals, then a different will be chosen. If there aren't alternate
proposals, then it will clear that the algorithms just don't match.

  (Kivinen,  Darren, please confirm for me this interpretation)
  I would suggest that you still include a vendor id so that another
implementation can determine which private address space is in use.

  RSA signatures (sans OID) are not a MUST in the spec, so if you can't
support them, no big deal.

   :!mcr!:            |  Sandelman Software Works Corporation, Ottawa, ON  
   Michael Richardson |	SSH IPsec: http://www.ssh.fi/. Secure, strong, international
 Personal: <A HREF="http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/People/Michael_Richardson/Bio.html">mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca</A>. PGP key available.
 Corporate: <A HREF="http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/SSW/">sales@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca</A>.
References: