On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 5:27 AM John Mattsson <john.mattsson= [email protected]> wrote:
> Dan Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > > > ANSI X9.62-2005 was withdrawn in 2015 > > Ok, that TLS 1.3 is relying on a withdrawn publication that used to be > behind a paywall is even worse. > Ugh. > > Also, I expect FIPS 186-5 is nearly ready, and will specify much of > ECDSA > > That NIST FIPS 186-5 will include all the details needed to implement > ECDSA is great. > > >IETF has specs for sigs and their formats already, no? > > At the time when RFC 8446 was published, there was probably no quick and > easy solution to the problem. But the fact that IETF has historically been > fine with relying on specifications behind paywalls is part of the problem. > If IETF had implemented a strong open-access policy a long-time ago, there > would probably be an open-access version of ECDSA (NIST or IETF) a long > time ago.. > I agree with you about the policy here. To be honest, I just didn't notice this; and it would probably need some github spelunking to figure out the history of these references. If someone wanted to propose an erratum that would fix this, I would be very appreciative. -Ekr > Cheers, > John > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Brown <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, 1 October 2019 at 12:47 > To: John Mattsson <[email protected]>, Peter Gutmann < > [email protected]>, Hubert Kario <[email protected]>, " > [email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [TLS] Ecdsa-sig-value in TLS 1.3 – need for erratum? > > 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 ANSI X9.62-2005 was withdrawn in 2015, expiring automatically after 10 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://protect2.fireeye.com/url?k=749c6dba-280e60e6-749c2d21-0cc47ad93d46-3da924ab2cfe57e8&q=1&u=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_tls%26d%3DDwICAg%26c%3DyzoHOc_ZK-sxl-kfGNSEvlJYanssXN3q-lhj0sp26wE%26r%3DqkpbVDRj7zlSRVql-UonsW647lYqnsrbXizKI6MgkEw%26m%3DA-9JTBh7dU_hCbOrrx-iACEmGPbjipnEohllYGLju6I%26s%3Dp2p9Y_hh-jb_qBNaNqTbSTYE2tAuJo-BaKDbemFVLxU%26e%3D > > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
