I’m in favor of keeping sect571r1. I realize it doesn’t get a ton of usage. -- Regards, Uri Blumenthal
On 7/15/15, 14:13 , "TLS on behalf of Dave Garrett" <tls-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of davemgarr...@gmail.com> wrote: >In PR 188 for TLS 1.3, I pruned down the allowed elliptic curves to just >the ones actually used. (per Sean's recommendation) One point of >discussion between Eric and myself: sect571r1. I'm in favor of keeping >it, but not very strongly. Eric suggested removing it. It does get some >use, though quite a bit less than the others. > >The main reason I think this warrants discussion is that dropping it >would drop the maximum bits here, which whilst obviously not the only >factor to take into account, will possibly not be desired by some. The >main arguments for ditching is probably that it might not be safely >implemented and nobody actually needs something this big. > >So, should it stay or should it go now? Opinions? > > >Dave > >_______________________________________________ >TLS mailing list >TLS@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
