> I'd welcome support for CBOR(-encoded) certificates since they can save a lot
> of space
> for both the data itself and the code handling it, which may be vital for IoT
> scenarios, for instance.
> It looks like the standardization of their definition got pretty far already.
Exactly! And there
-Original Message-
From: openssl-users On Behalf Of Michael
Wojcik
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 9:28 AM
To: openssl-users@openssl.org
Subject: RE: OpenSSL 1.1.1g Windows build slow rsa tests
> >From: openssl-users On Behalf Of
> >Dr Paul Dale
> >Sent: Wednesday, 20 January, 2021 19
Uri:
>
> Unfortunately, there's no ASN.1 -> CBOR codec generator, AFAIK, which is why
> I'm asking here.
Nope, and if there were, it would not generate the same result as the
compressions routines that Ben referenced.
Russ
> From: openssl-users On Behalf Of Dr Paul
> Dale
> Sent: Wednesday, 20 January, 2021 19:28
>
> I'd suggest giving a build without the no-asm option a try. The
> performance difference is usually quite significant.
I agree. It just doesn't explain what Dan's email claims.
> Statis vs dynamic bu
I'd welcome support for CBOR(-encoded) certificates since they can save
a lot of space
for both the data itself and the code handling it, which may be vital
for IoT scenarios, for instance.
It looks like the standardization of their definition got pretty far
already.
Although it is certainly possi
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 02:24:24 +0100,
Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 06:26:23PM -0500, Russ Housley wrote:
>
> > I am looking a test certificate that contains an RSA-OAEP subject
> > public key (OID = id-RSAES-OAEP from RFC 4055) and is signed with
> > RSA-PSS (OID = id-RSASSA-P
