[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Requirements for IKEv2 implementations
- To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
- Subject: Re: Requirements for IKEv2 implementations
- From: Lauri Tarkkala <ltarkkal@ssh.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 18:51:35 +0300
- Cc: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
- In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030430161520.034b0a28@mail.binhost.com>
- References: <541402FFDC56DA499E7E13329ABFEA87E66CD7@SARATOGA.netscreen.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030430161520.034b0a28@mail.binhost.com>
- Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
- User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 04:17:47PM -0400, Russ Housley wrote:
> Greg:
>
> I question the PSS as the mandatory to implement. While I am for an
> advocate for this algorithm, I do not think that it is widely deployed
> today. I think that RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 is a more appropriate signature
> algorithm for MUST. RSA PSS is the up and coming signature algorithm, and
> as such I think that SHOULD is the way to go.
I agree.
Technically PSS is superior to PKSC#1, but I have seen very
little support for it in practice. Considering that it would
be an advantage to preserve the ability to generate these
signatures on misc. devices (smart-cards, USB tokens, and
other things I seldom see people using ;-) I would be in favor
of the above proposal.
Lauri
--
Lauri Tarkkala
SSH Communications Security Corp