Does reading Ecdsa-sig-value need a full DER parser? The new syntax does not rely on a buggy parser, as far as I know. The biggest bug is in the old syntax, which is not extensible. Use a valid DER parser plus new syntax to accept signatures, and all old syntax signatures will accepted, right??? Is it possible to do better with a non-extensible syntax? The only breakdown is the old syntax parsers receiving the extensions, right? That's the only place a lax parser would help.
Original Message From: Peter Gutmann Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 6:15 PM To: Hubert Kario; Dan Brown Cc: TLS@ietf.org Subject: Re: [TLS] Ecdsa-sig-value in TLS 1.3 – need for erratum? Hubert Kario <hka...@redhat.com> writes: >a lax DER parser sounds like an oxymoron to me... :) That's why I assumed it was an accident/error. Writing a spec that relies on buggy parser implementations in order to work is asking for trouble. Peter.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
