Re: [CFRG] XDR in RFC8391

[[e-mail]]

Hi Andreas,

please excuse the late answer.

The identifier should be 4 byte, yet it looks like the ots_signature  
itself is missing.

Currently working on an errata.

Kind Regards,
Stefan

Quoting "Kretschmer, Andreas" <[e-mail]>:

> Hallo Stefan,
>
> Is this right:
>
> If I want to encode a xmss_ots_signature (e.g. as part of a  
> xmss_signature) I have to write at first 4 byte for the "  
> xmss_algorithm_type type" discriminator followed by 4 byte for an  
> specific arm?
>
> Thanks,
> Andreas
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Donnerstag, 3. Dezember 2020 09:34
> To: Kretschmer, Andreas (T RDA CST SEA-DE) <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [CFRG] XDR in RFC8391
>
> Hi Andreas,
>
> thanks for pointing out the issues and please excuse the inconvencience.
>
>> - some Identifiers contain "/" and "-", RFC4506 allows only letter,
>> digits and underbars
> The easy fix for which I'd settle as suggested by David is to use underbars.
>
>> - some enum bodies end with  ",}", RFC4506 requests "}" here
> You're right. Please omit the commas.
>
>> - some union definitions have incomplete declarations in the
>> case-spec, e.g. the union xmss_ots_signature refers to the
>> wotsp-sha2_256 without giving a type.
> It's just a numeric identifier, as pointed out by Carsten, defined as
> ots_algorithm_type. Does this help or do you have any further
> questions about it?
>
>> - Is there a fixed formal correct version of the  RFC8391 XDR
>> definitions available?
> No, there isn't, yet. But we could e.g. go for an errata for the RFC.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Stefan (speaking for the authors)