Re: [CGA-EXT] Review of draft-ietf-csi-proxy-send

Hello Alberto,

I agree with your new text.

However, I can not help but think that the PadLen field will be
requiered later on, when other signature algorithms will be used (where
the signature may not encode its own lenght). 
I think the WG should have a discussion on re-introducing or justifying
the lack of PadLen field. Because, if you choose not to introduce it in
this spec, there might be two specs to fix later on.

Also, I spotted a small typo in the Reserved field:
"A 11-bit field reserved" => "A 16-bit field reserved"

Regards,
 	Tony

On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Alberto García wrote:

> Hi
>
> |  -----Mensaje original-----
> |  De: cga-ext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:cga-ext-bounces@ietf.org] En nombre
> de
> |  Jari Arkko
> |  Enviado el: viernes, 11 de diciembre de 2009 6:37
> |  Para: Tony Cheneau
> |  CC: draft-ietf-csi-proxy-send@tools.ietf.org; cga-ext@ietf.org
> |  Asunto: Re: [CGA-EXT] Review of draft-ietf-csi-proxy-send
> |
> |  Tony,
> |
> |  > The padding field is exactly defined this way in RFC 3971 (although a
> |  > Pad Length field was present on the -04 version of the SEND draft). I
> |  > think the draft-ietf-csi-proxy-send-01 document only reuses the format
> |  > of the badly defined RSA Signature Option.
> |
> |  Ah, OK.
> |
> |  > If RFC 3971 was to be updated, I agree that a padding length field
> |  > should be defined somewhere in the RSA (or XXX) Signature Option. Was
> |  > there a rational behind its removal during the RFC 3971
> |  > standardisation process ?
> |
> |  I can't recall. Maybe this is one of the bugs that we need to fix. Or
> |  perhaps there is a way to determine the lengths but neither of us can't
> |  just see it right now. In any case, it should be clearly specified in
> |  3971bis and the proxy-send drafts.
>
> The length of the Digital Signature can be obtained from parsing the PKCS#1
> v1.5 signature itself, which is coded in ASN.1 BER.
> Therefore, I have changed in draft-ietf-csi-proxy-send-02 the statement
> saying:
>
> "The length of the
>      	Digital Signature field is determined by the length of the RSA
>      	Signature option minus the length of the other fields (including
>      	the variable length Pad field.)
>
> by
> "The length of the Digital Signature field is determined by the ASN.1 BER
> coding of the PKCS#1 v1.5 signature."
>
> Then, I would still say that
> "The length of the padding field is determined by the length of the Proxy
> Signature Option minus the length of the other fields."
>
> Do you think this is correct?
>
> Regards,
> Alberto
>
> |
> |  Jari
> |
> |  _______________________________________________
> |  CGA-EXT mailing list
> |  CGA-EXT@ietf.org
> |  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cga-ext
>
>