Re: [TLS] DSS with other than SHA-1 algorithms

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Peter Gutmann <[e-mail]> wrote
> Speaking of fixing TLS 1.2 problems, what's the next move for the action list
> of TLS 1.2 issues I posted a week or so back?  Can I get the edit token for TLS
> 1.2bis, or should I do a distinct draft that'll then be folded into a future
> TLS 1.2bis?

With regard to the specific list of issues you raised:

1. I'm not convinced that the requirement that relying parties check
the signature_algorithm
should in fact be relaxed. In general, I believe that semantics that
are requested in the protocol
should indeed be enforced. However, even if we were to make this
change, the simplest
thing would be a standalone document that relaxed the requirement.

2. I don't have a problem with changing the name of
SignatureAndHashAlgorithm in some future
draft, but since this is basically an editorial change, I also don't
think it merits a -bis.

3. The ECC issues you raise are not issues in 5246 at all, since ECC
is specified in a
different document (4492).


So, with this list in mind, I don't believe a revision of 5246 is
either necessary or appropriate
at this time.

-Ekr