[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: FIPS 186 and X9.42: One of these things is not like the other
[Recipient list trimmed somewhat, I hope this is going to appropriate people]
Russ Housley <housley@spyrus.com> writes:
>Both of these parameter structures are included in RFC 2459. Concerns about
>alignment of the two structures should have been raised many months ago.
>
>While it might have been nice to have the two parameter definitions use the
>same order for p, q, and g, this is not a show stopper. People have
>implemented with against the current specifications, and I am strongly
>opposed to changes at this late date.
I had the impression that for an outsider to influence ANSI standards was close
to impossible (if it wasn't for P1363 I'd never even have seen X9.42), which is
why I never commented on it. Besides, I can't go around nitpicking *every*
standard around, there are only so many hours in the day :-). That's why, in
my original message, I merely suggested that any new work which uses X9.42 and
FIPS 186/X9.30/whatever other standard it appears in point out that although
the keys look the same and quack the same, they have two of the parameters
(with names which look almost identical) reversed in the ASN.1 form. This is a
trap just waiting to catch the unwary.
[Having said that, I'd certainly like to see the ASN.1 fixed so the two match
up, but I guess that's unlikely to happen at this stage].
Peter.