Hi Dan:
Just curious about the fate of ANSI X9.62-2005: On the website below, this specification
is still listed as "active" (whereas ANSI X9.62-1998 is labelled historic).
I purchased that spec for a project on Nov 22, 2016 from the ANSI webstore
(when, surely, it was not labelled as expired) [see purchase info below].
What happened? Was someone sleeping at the wheel? Why would there be a completely
differently named "revival", ANSI X9.142, with almost the same content, under
way, and why would its fate, 4 years after 2015, be unsure? Is there a technical reason
ANSI did not wish to pursue this, or admin mishaps?
Rene
Note: purchase info RS from ansi store below:
Subject: Your Order Confirmation for X_458150
From: [email protected]
Date: 11/22/2016, 2:57 PM
To: [snip]
25 West 43 Street
New York, NY 10036
Tel: 212.642.4900
Fax: 212.398.0023
Sold To
Rene Struik
[snip]
CANADA
Order ID X_458150
Card Received Mastercard
Charged to Account ****[snip]
Date 11/22/2016
Quantity Product Unit Price Total Price
1 ANSI X9.62:2005 $100.00 $100.00 Download
Total $100.00
THANK YOU FOR USING THE ANSI STANDARDS STORE.
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) is a private non-profit
organization that administers and
coordinates the U.S. voluntary standardization and conformity assessment system.
The standards you purchased were added to your Alerts Profile, which will allow
you to receive an automatic
notification via email when the documents are revised or amended. You may
manage your alerts at any time.
https://standards.globalspec.com/std/1955141/ANSI%20X9.62
On 10/1/2019 6:47 AM, Dan Brown wrote:
Re ECDSA specs and paywells:
ANSI X9.62-2005 was withdrawn in 2015, expiring automatically after 10 years,
despite my weak effort.
A revival, ANSI X9.142, with almost the same content is under way, though even
its fate is unsure.
Also, I expect FIPS 186-5 is nearly ready, and will specify much of ECDSA and
EdDSA (not ASN.1?), which many may like (even better than ANSI).
Meanwhile, SEC1, versions 1.0 and 2.0, are available, fortunately or not,
despite my weak effort.
IETF has specs for sigs and their formats already, no?
Then there's ISO, IEEE, ...
Original Message
From: John Mattsson
Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 5:25 AM
To: Peter Gutmann; Hubert Kario; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TLS] Ecdsa-sig-value in TLS 1.3 – need for erratum?
Hubert Kario <[email protected]> wrote:
Now, I don't have access to X9.62-2005, but there's a possibility of confusion.
I think references to specifications behind paywalls and other types of limited
access is a major problem. Not only for the standardization process, but also
for researchers and implementors. In general, I think people should be able to
implement and analyze IETF standards without having to pay for access.
Open-access is even more important for security specifications. ANSI X.62 is
hopefully quite well-studied, but for other references, the lack of analysis
often leads to mistakes and unknown weaknesses.
I would like the IETF to take a much stronger stance against normative
references to paywalls.
Cheers,
John
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[email protected]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_tls&d=DwICAg&c=yzoHOc_ZK-sxl-kfGNSEvlJYanssXN3q-lhj0sp26wE&r=qkpbVDRj7zlSRVql-UonsW647lYqnsrbXizKI6MgkEw&m=A-9JTBh7dU_hCbOrrx-iACEmGPbjipnEohllYGLju6I&s=p2p9Y_hh-jb_qBNaNqTbSTYE2tAuJo-BaKDbemFVLxU&e=
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
--
email: [email protected] | Skype: rstruik
cell: +1 (647) 867-5658 | US: +1 (415) 690-7363
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
