> On May 4, 2017, at 08:41, Hubert Kario <hka...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 15:09:04 CEST Sean Turner wrote: >> All, >> >> draft-ietf-tls-rfc4492bis has been revised since it left the WG and we agree >> with Yoav’s statement at the mic in Chicago that the WG should review the >> changes before we ask Kathleen (our newly appointed AD) to continue >> progressing the draft. Please review the differences from the -12 version >> that went through WGLC and the latest version [0] and let us know by >> 20170426 whether there is anything that would stop progression of the >> draft. > > I know I am late with the review, but I'd like to ask two questions: > > 1. In table 2, the "key authorised for use in digital signatures" was > removed. > Does that mean that key usage extension in X.509 certificates should be > ignored?
No it does not. There were changes to the table, but s2.2 is still there and that’s where it says “… MUST contain an RSA public key authorized for signing ..." > 2. Given that RFC7919 is already accepted, standards track document, > shouldn't "NamedCurve" references be renamed to "NamedGroup" (e.g. in > Section 5.5.1.) It’s either a replace or note the name change (i.e., in my mind this is a style thing). The 1st paragraph of s5.1.1 notes them; RFC 4492 defined 25 different curves in the NamedCurve registry (now renamed the "Supported Groups" registry, although the enumeration below is still named NamedCurve) for use in TLS. spt _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
