Or we could just remove the key lengths from the algorithm IDs altogether ;) They really don't add any value.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 6:17 PM, John Bradley <[email protected]> wrote: > I am OK with registering the 192 bit versions. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 18, 2013, at 5:17 PM, Mike Jones <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Richard had previously requested that we register algorithm identifiers > for AES using 192 bit keys. As he previously pointed out, “It seems like > if we're going to support AES, then we should support AES. Every AES > library I know of supports all three key lengths, so it's not like there's > extra cost besides the registry entry.” (I’ll note that we already have > algorithm identifiers for the “mid-size” HMAC and signature functions > “HS384”, “RS384”, and “ES384”.)**** > > ** ** > > I heard no objections at the time. I’m therefore thinking that we should > register algorithm identifiers for these key sizes as well. Specifically, > we would add:**** > > “A192KW”, “ECDH-ES+A192KW”, “A192GCMKW”, “PBES2-HS256+A192KW”, > “A192CBC-HS384”, and “A192GCM”. Support for these algorithms would be > optional.**** > > ** ** > > What do people think?**** > > ** ** > > -- Mike**** > > ** ** > > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose > > > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose > >
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
