[lamps] draft-ietf-lamps-cms-shakes-07
Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Thu, 28 February 2019 22:10 UTC
Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2D79129532 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 14:10:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uYIRfj2JwZuu for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 14:10:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 361A7124408 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 14:10:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B583300A9A for <spasm@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 16:52:11 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id TI3ru_a70Mjv for <spasm@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 16:52:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (unknown [138.88.156.37]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6B72A300400 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 16:52:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Message-Id: <8A2F741C-3E8A-4D7A-B70C-F570932DD96C@vigilsec.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 17:10:26 -0500
To: SPASM <spasm@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/_UnxnxjAz_b9Yx9tE25-bS3es2o>
Subject: [lamps] draft-ietf-lamps-cms-shakes-07
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is a venue for discussion of doing Some Pkix And SMime \(spasm\) work." <spasm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spasm/>
List-Post: <mailto:spasm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 22:10:31 -0000
I was just looking at this document, and an inconsistency jumped out at me.
Section 4.1 says that id-shake128-len and id-shake256-len have no parameters.
However, as used in RFC 8419 has a parameter:
hashAlg-SHAKE256-LEN ALGORITHM ::= { OID id-shake256-len
PARMS ShakeOutputLen }
id-shake256-len OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { hashAlgs 18 }
ShakeOutputLen ::= INTEGER -- Output length in bits
On the other hand, id-shake256 has no parameters:
hashAlg-SHAKE256 ALGORITHM ::= { OID id-shake256 }
id-shake256 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { hashAlgs 12 }
I think this needs to get sorted out before draft-ietf-lamps-cms-shakes goes to IETF Last Call.
Russ
- [lamps] draft-ietf-lamps-cms-shakes-07 Russ Housley
- Re: [lamps] draft-ietf-lamps-cms-shakes-07 Jeffrey Walton
- Re: [lamps] draft-ietf-lamps-cms-shakes-07 Panos Kampanakis (pkampana)