Re: [Trans] duplicate 0x0403 in signature scheme registry
Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Tue, 30 March 2021 22:19 UTC
Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC45B3A114C for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 15:19:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 pugWy3U0O132 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 15:19:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E3393A113B for <trans@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 15:19:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F93kk0vPqzCMG; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 00:18:54 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1617142734; bh=J8l2mpNnWHb9nn7HLKjuISHcZdy6eigGcrawoO4vkWc=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=fzUzlaJCwEcpbM+RiTmXZrNCGI7i+6H5s5Cw0Fsw/l8T3U53K9YBa/OZa2a8IkZ4G HjT/F7NeDrDgB1BMh8r1xgskF0PQMu9vxp3WQLNRo3b+4jqrJ8epOxQzDqPxEycXr6 PKkeYy/2JI45bpgUN+8+zSL46AKfvspQWkiDyDVw=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OpF-nbn_nlQa; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 00:18:53 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 00:18:53 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1FB776029A6B; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 18:18:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E33E6FD7F; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 18:18:52 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 18:18:52 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Rob Stradling <rob@sectigo.com>
cc: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, "trans@ietf.org" <trans@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <MW3PR17MB412200AE9CD68C509C9547F9AA7D9@MW3PR17MB4122.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <361afdb1-3132-fa97-e5ab-d7b14ab9c7@nohats.ca>
References: <1E0248E8-A269-4C00-A0CA-60D4F89639A4@akamai.com> <MW3PR17MB4122D493F93E58FB545ECA3AAA7E9@MW3PR17MB4122.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>, <7FEA0790-F768-487C-A08F-F0151DCE8150@akamai.com> <MW3PR17MB412200AE9CD68C509C9547F9AA7D9@MW3PR17MB4122.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/SduangXqTKQwJCVqrwPn1zHBxVY>
Subject: Re: [Trans] duplicate 0x0403 in signature scheme registry
X-BeenThere: trans@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Public Notary Transparency working group discussion list <trans.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/trans/>
List-Post: <mailto:trans@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 22:19:09 -0000
On Tue, 30 Mar 2021, Rob Stradling wrote: > Subject: Re: [Trans] duplicate 0x0403 in signature scheme registry > > > I understand the reasoning; is it worth putting something into the draft? > > Yes, I think it's worth adding a sentence to explain why we're not using the TLS SignatureScheme registry directly. And probably a note about the 'duplicate' entry too ? Paul
- [Trans] duplicate 0x0403 in signature scheme regi… Salz, Rich
- Re: [Trans] duplicate 0x0403 in signature scheme … Rob Stradling
- Re: [Trans] duplicate 0x0403 in signature scheme … Salz, Rich
- Re: [Trans] duplicate 0x0403 in signature scheme … Salz, Rich
- Re: [Trans] duplicate 0x0403 in signature scheme … Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Trans] duplicate 0x0403 in signature scheme … Rob Stradling
- Re: [Trans] duplicate 0x0403 in signature scheme … Paul Wouters
- Re: [Trans] duplicate 0x0403 in signature scheme … Salz, Rich