On 11/24/15 at 2:08 PM, ilariliusva...@welho.com (Ilari
Liusvaara) wrote:
My personal view is (I haven't asked Simon about this) is that:
- Ed25519 is currently technically stable. There seems to be consensus
not change it in any way that would break verification.
- Ed448 is unimplementable right now due to two missing functions.
- Once those two are missing (there is call for proposals this
week) functions are decided, Ed448 should become technically
stable.
I would prefer not to assign a code point until we know what it
means. (i.e. can write code which interoperates.)
On 11/23/15 at 2:01 PM, e...@rtfm.com (Eric Rescorla) wrote:
if it's only a few weeks, let's just do all the signature code points
then.
I would like to hear from implementers about how much this delay
would affect them. We're coming into the December madness, so
perhaps they want to spend time with their families. :-)
Otherwise, I'm in favor of early code points. We can always burn
ones we dont want. We can either document them as obsolete, do
not use, or if deployment is low enough, reassign them later if needed.
Cheers - Bill
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz | "The only thing we have to | Periwinkle
(408)356-8506 | fear is fear itself." - FDR | 16345
Englewood Ave
www.pwpconsult.com | Inaugural address, 3/4/1933 | Los Gatos,
CA 95032
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
