Yoav Nir <[email protected]> writes: >> On 12 Nov 2015, at 12:13 PM, Simon Josefsson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> There have been no additional comment on the list, and we have had one >> positive review from an implementer [1]. Is there any reason to wait >> further with WG last calling this document? Its dependency on >> draft-irtf-cfrg-curves is in the RFC editors queue already. >> >> Thanks, >> /Simon >> >> [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/vS1sy2ROhA6twEe7QwX1ISXtLVM > > OK, so here’s two comments:
Thank you! > 1. See Ilari’s pr for RFC4492bis [2]. Do we want similar name > changes? We could use a similar change when we talk about key agreement explicitly. When talking about the curves the traditional names are fine. > 2. We make no mention of EdDSA signatures. I know they should just > work with RFC 7427, but do we want to mention them and give the OIDs? Support for EdDSA might be a completely different draft. I'm not convinced RFC 7427 plus an OID is sufficient to get EdDSA to work in an interoperable manner. Is there interest from the WG in pursuing EdDSA signing in IPSEC? If so we could add it to this draft or write a new one. /Simon > Yoav > > [2] https://github.com/tlswg/rfc4492bis/pull/16 > > > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
