Hubert Kario <[email protected]> writes: > As is described in secion 5.1. of RFC 4492, and then reiterated in > section 2.2. of this draft - the elliptic_curves (a.k.a. supported_groups) > guides both the ECDH curves and curves understandable by peer for ECDSA > signatures. > > As Curve25519 and Curve448 can only be used for ECDHE, maybe they should be > defined/named in the registry as such, to remove any ambiguity[1]: > > enum { > Curve25519_ecdh(TBD1), > Curve448_ecdh(TBD2), > } NamedCurve;
I don't care strongly. One disadvantage with this is that if we decide to reuse these NamedCurve allocations to have something to do with Ed25519, the naming above will be confusing. However, I believe it is already likely that Ed25519 will have its own NamedCurve. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
