On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:21:21PM +0200, Yoav Nir wrote: > > > On 12 Jan 2016, at 9:26 PM, Simon Josefsson <si...@josefsson.org> wrote: > > > > The same concern still applies: what does it mean to allocate code > > point for the 4492bis-05 description? > > Allocating code points just means an implementation of draft-05 is > likely to interoperate just fine with an implementation of the final > RFC. > > Of course nothing is ever final until the RFC is out, so there’s > always a risk involved, but it is considered prudent to allocate > numbers when we’re reasonably certain of the calculations and on- > the-wire formats. Any debate about whether we should or should not > check certain inputs for certain conditions need not be a bar for > allocating numbers.
Assuming CFRG chairs really did declare consensus on Ed448 hash, then the final characteristics of Ed448 are known and I have a reference implementation. And the PKIX draft looks implementable (has wrong example?) More serious interop hazard is what to do with X25519/X448 and THS (some of the proposed stuff is not wire-compatible). -Ilari _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
