Re: [TLS] Was the numbering of rsa_pss_pss_sha384 intentional?
Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Thu, 04 January 2018 01:33 UTC
Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2594F12D7EC for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jan 2018 17:33:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 s_jaDe_mr5Si for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jan 2018 17:33:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-x232.google.com (mail-yw0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BD78127137 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jan 2018 17:33:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw0-x232.google.com with SMTP id l23so75366ywb.13 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Jan 2018 17:33:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ix7L9gK7BfgJIvw9YvMMovG6zZNJ1OV2ORQ2cemvWew=; b=gefIExQxprQ88rgk45sjsIyWhN3n8MGGFxZWGIbZ4vdYO42+qH33Z6HSmxvH50xdw8 4+42tqt3cv0FwCYFAKCYv/AbbVJUVyq85OiXGNDnoUNOO9fb4oULP5p2Cyf+lA9O26zn 11JwUYPKPUBWq8B8KsuUXIngK9I7I/Qw/h00a+w8/RYK7GOBAkwaumxlcDMOZFOGjlhQ hRPO2qt1ziBciNZUpRkhZ3fr9MGPSTL1W1G62+0qeG2lVllMBlVOkswEV8a0dki+DPSj 2sEXGjWJXQsnPuKhF5iS8WbX+bGDgUrODxzdCcOU4YdT4j+xrQjuCl1/lbEqu/4gxox/ lS1Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ix7L9gK7BfgJIvw9YvMMovG6zZNJ1OV2ORQ2cemvWew=; b=JKlWLxWVcxkdnt5GKUm46xjfyF6pXaYd28KgQB2hytE0N1eEo8naUR8nP80x6URmAm a4gp4HHQo0YzVodpQdEeXTh8IGYguLjuHPcRvISsfO8oi9FcUjq1mVLpe9CIgaatnC3I Ze5A/awdH94HnHFInj7+tn49NPUJfVNW7U/z2/bXgKMIAoOZHNIzA+YUxXC4QUKRQFs9 DLqnrx5Ufpy1D4YQbWGzcdfgTOwvjzM7YazDKIuFj+31Ifw8u3ALQEiQnMpaa+pSiEyC 931yYwoe4h1iSm1rBqDH7co0U+Vt/Mso6JHM1ZDdna6WHIZMDiF3fHOpYLUfSkKVyqOZ emeA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mIBHa7j7F5dK+U7Jj3eMvW3KSnzQiarNaYkxeES8Cn4hJDa4HpY BrictEzc3n04aPzYsDZ+yx/Hh4hKAYJ1ZBzDeGkNjw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBouZI+wNxc4LqHznubAiua2AlVUdDRzftX+CJS9KS/Cye43qn6bpVDuhxHE1t2NRIUeLYrO6BB0PyA4do7DKOBY=
X-Received: by 10.129.48.202 with SMTP id w193mr3001953yww.378.1515029589419; Wed, 03 Jan 2018 17:33:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.129.123.132 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Jan 2018 17:32:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnUT4TGekD83fB5e4Z10RPj4-Pmv=_tppCWcUEM0=N8MrQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABkgnnUT4TGekD83fB5e4Z10RPj4-Pmv=_tppCWcUEM0=N8MrQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2018 17:32:28 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBMcW+eX97cLLy12jqL5GY78vkxu=91jwhtPNqyWcxMFoA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11409cfa8085a70561e9509c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/4m81jPpxe5jc8hgkvHv_621nd38>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Was the numbering of rsa_pss_pss_sha384 intentional?
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2018 01:33:12 -0000
No, just forgetting we were working in hex I think it would be fine to change. -Ekr On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 5:04 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > rsa_pss_pss_sha256(0x0809), > rsa_pss_pss_sha384(0x0810), > rsa_pss_pss_sha512(0x0811), > > 0x080a is the next value... > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >
- [TLS] Was the numbering of rsa_pss_pss_sha384 int… Martin Thomson
- Re: [TLS] Was the numbering of rsa_pss_pss_sha384… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [TLS] Was the numbering of rsa_pss_pss_sha384… Martin Thomson