Hi,
Yes, I think we discussed it, but I think we should really see at
least one implementation before we pick it as SHOULD+ level...
Has anybody implemented this yet?
Yes.
Also as we do say that RSASSA-PSS MUST be implemented, that means that
every implementation which sends out the SIGNATURE_HASH_ALGORITHMS and
conforms to this document, must support RSASSA-PSS, thus
implementations can always use it when using RSA keys.
Only reason to support RSASSA-PKCS1-v1.5 is to support RFC7427
implementations which are made before this 4307bis document came out,
and which do not support RSASSA-PSS required here.
I don't think it is a good idea in general to link support for RSASSA-PSS with
support for RFC7427. However, I don't know a better solution for now.
I think it is a deficiency of RFC7427 that it only allows to indicate the list
of supported hash functions and doesn't allow to indicate supported
signature formats.
Regards,
Valery.
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
