> On 12 Jan 2016, at 21:31, Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusva...@welho.com> wrote: > >> 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).
This CFRG co-chair would like to see an updated CFRG draft before the code point is allocated. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
