Sorry, I was thinking of the wrong draft. See: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-opaque-03#section-4.2.2
and https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-opaque-03#appendix-C thanks, Rob On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 6:08 AM Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer) <sfluh...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 9:39 PM Joseph Salowey <j...@salowey.net> wrote: > > > > There is at least one question on the list that has gone unanswered for > some time [1]. > > > > [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/yCBYp10QuYPSu5zOoM3v84SAIZE/ > > > > I've found most of the OPAQUE drafts are pretty confusing / incorrect / or > typo'd when it comes to lines like these. Describing these calculations > seems difficult in ASCII, so I don't fault anyone for making mistakes here. > The authors have also been pretty responsive in adding test vectors and > such. > > > > If the answer is “it’s a typo”, that’s fine – I agree that RFCs are a > horrid format for expressing equations. However, it would be good if there > were to state what is the correct relationship here (and possibly update > the draft with the corrected versions) > > > > >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
