Re: [jose] RSASSA-PSS signature

This has had a fair amount of discussion.   While I think almost everyone would prefer PSS, many implementations are going to be in scripting languages where the underlying libraries only support PKCS1-v1_5.

We did a survey of platforms to evaluate if we could move to PSS and the result lead us not to make PSS as the MTI.  In think that was reported out at the Atlanta IETF meeting.
Nat may be able to forward that to you, I don't have it handy.

If we were talking about starting from scratch and not building on existing platforms likely the answer would have been different.

The algorithms are extensible so PSS can be added.   The other consideration is that many of the people who care will be using ECESA signatures anyway.

John B.

On 2013-03-12, at 2:52 PM, "Peck, Michael A" <mpeck@mitre.org> wrote:

> draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-08 includes RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 signatures but not RSASSA-PSS.
>  
> The Security Considerations states:
>    While Section 8 of RFC 3447 [RFC3447] explicitly calls for people not
>    to adopt RSASSA-PKCS1 for new applications and instead requests that
>    people transition to RSASSA-PSS, this specification does include
>    RSASSA-PKCS1, for interoperability reasons, because it commonly
>    implemented.
>  
> Shouldn’t RSASSA-PSS at least be included as an option?
> I’m also not sure if I fully understand the interoperability concerns.  JWS is a new specification, so it makes sense to me to use whatever algorithms are currently considered best practice, without need to worry about backwards compatibility?
>  
> Mike
>  
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose

Re: [jose] RSASSA-PSS signature

Attachment: smime.p7s