Re: [TLS] Ecdsa-sig-value in TLS 1.3 – need for erratum?

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

> On Oct 2, 2019, at 12:23, Hubert Kario <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Signed PGP part
> On Wednesday, 2 October 2019 13:18:07 CEST Hubert Kario wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 1 October 2019 17:01:54 CEST Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 5:27 AM John Mattsson <john.mattsson=
>>> 
>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> Dan Brown <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> ANSI X9.62-2005 was withdrawn in 2015
>>>> 
>>>> Ok, that TLS 1.3 is relying on a withdrawn publication that used to be
>>>> behind a paywall is even worse.
>>> 
>>> Ugh.
>>> 
>>>>> Also, I expect FIPS 186-5 is nearly ready, and will specify much of
>>>> 
>>>> ECDSA
>>>> 
>>>> That NIST FIPS 186-5 will include all the details needed to implement
>>>> ECDSA is great.
>>>> 
>>>>> IETF has specs for sigs and their formats already, no?
>>>> 
>>>> At the time when RFC 8446 was published, there was probably no quick and
>>>> easy solution to the problem. But the fact that IETF has historically
>>>> been
>>>> fine with relying on specifications behind paywalls is part of the
>>>> problem.
>>>> If IETF had implemented a strong open-access policy a long-time ago,
>>>> there
>>>> would probably be an open-access version of ECDSA (NIST or IETF) a long
>>>> time ago..
>>> 
>>> I agree with you about the policy here. To be honest, I just didn't notice
>>> this; and it would probably need some github spelunking to figure out the
>>> history of these references.
>>> 
>>> If someone wanted to propose an erratum that would fix this, I would be
>>> very appreciative.
>> 
>> I just did propose an erratum for that.
> 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5868

On the 5480 vs 4492 reference.  4492 is also in the DOWNREF registry so it’s okay on that front, but three’s no ASN.1 module.  That ASN.;1 come from the ASNI X9.62 spec.  I have a slight preference to refer to 5480 and just add the reference.

spt