On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 7:28 AM, Hubert Kario <hka...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 3 September 2018 16:01:22 CEST Eric Rescorla wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 4:18 AM, Hubert Kario <hka...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Sunday, 2 September 2018 15:30:45 CEST Bruckert, Leonie wrote: > > > > Htmlized: > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bruckert-brainpool-for-tls13-00 > > > > > > > > Abstract: > > > > This document specifies the use of several ECC Brainpool curves > for > > > > > > > > authentication and key exchange in the Transport Layer Security > (TLS) > > > > > > > > protocol version 1.3. > > > > > > So I understand why you need SignatureScheme registrations, but I'm > > > completely > > > missing the need for NamedGroup registrations – are the 26, 27 and 28 > > > tainted > > > somehow? > > > > Yes. They are explicitly prohibited by the TLS 1.3 spec. See the previous > > discussion on-list. > > well, implementations that receive them in TLS 1.3 still MUST ignore them, What text do you believe requires that? > not > abort connection, so I still think it will create less confusion to > re-allow > them than to re-assign new codepoints > The issue is that it's not possible to distinguish a non-compliant TLS 1.3 implementation which is inappropriately sending these code points from one which actually supports Brainpool with TLS 1.3. Using new code points makes this clear. -Ekr > -- > Regards, > Hubert Kario > Senior Quality Engineer, QE BaseOS Security team > Web: www.cz.redhat.com > Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkyňova 115, 612 00 Brno, Czech Republic >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
