Hi Valery Sorry for the late reply. To answer your Q - sort of.. But I¹ve a few new ideas since on minimising the impact for the small devices.
I¹ll be in touch with these.. cheers On 19/04/2016 15:05, "IPsec on behalf of Valery Smyslov" <ipsec-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of sva...@gmail.com> wrote: >> If RSASSA-PSSv2 is done because RSASSA-PSS is found broken, then we >> just mark RSASSA-PSS as MUST NOT, and move to the new version. > >And this will cause interoperability problems since there is no way for >the peers >to indicate each other that they support particular signature encoding. >"MUST NOT" in RFC is insufficient: in real life you cannot update >all implementations overnight. Well, this is just a grunt... > >_______________________________________________ >IPsec mailing list >IPsec@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
