IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Trans] The RFC6979 requirement in RFC6962-bis is bad

Rob Stradling <rob.stradling@comodo.com> Fri, 05 May 2017 21:16 UTC

Return-Path: <rob.stradling@comodo.com>
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 E092E12778D for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 May 2017 14:16:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.291
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.291 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] 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 gFktzq_89odE for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 May 2017 14:16:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mmextmx2.mcr.colo.comodoca.net (mmextmx2.mcr.colo.comodoca.net [IPv6:2a02:1788:402:c00::c0a8:9cd6]) (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 1A404124BFA for <trans@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 May 2017 14:16:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 23585 invoked by uid 1004); 5 May 2017 21:16:09 -0000
Received: from rmdccgwarp1.reyn.mcr.dc.comodo.net (HELO maileu.comodo.net) (10.1.72.82) by mmextmx2.mcr.colo.comodoca.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 May 2017 22:16:09 +0100
Received: from [192.168.0.58] ([192.168.0.58]) by maileu.comodo.net (IceWarp 11.4.5.0 DEB8 x64) with ASMTP (SSL) id 201705052216091636; Fri, 05 May 2017 22:16:09 +0100
To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>, "trans@ietf.org" <trans@ietf.org>
References: <CAFewVt5z3sq-Occ1VaHeNeBvt1yyCM_3_nssZSu2f_PBEL4SFQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rob Stradling <rob.stradling@comodo.com>
Message-ID: <e57c1ac2-c484-3f71-375c-b5ce4efa5b71@comodo.com>
Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 22:16:08 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFewVt5z3sq-Occ1VaHeNeBvt1yyCM_3_nssZSu2f_PBEL4SFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/Z5aeOqnzqyPkExYNN3RZyBwja5M>
Subject: Re: [Trans] The RFC6979 requirement in RFC6962-bis is bad
X-BeenThere: trans@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 05 May 2017 21:16:15 -0000

On 04/05/17 23:21, Brian Smith wrote:
<snip>
> 4. Because of #1, #2, and #3, most crypto libraries and HSM
> implementations would be better off using a different deterministic
> signature scheme (such as a variant of the much more efficient one
> used for Ed25519).

Given that RFC8032 has been published and we're still working 6962-bis...

Would it be a good idea to add Ed25519 to the initial list of permitted 
signature algorithms that logs can use?

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-24#section-10.4

-- 
Rob Stradling
Senior Research & Development Scientist
COMODO - Creating Trust Online

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email