On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 03:54:11PM +0000, Kampanakis, Panos wrote: > Good idea. Option (f) could be an erratum that calls out EdDSA and > ML-DSA as examples of "built-in digest signatures" in X.509 that fall > under the non MD-5/SHA-1 hash bullet of RFC 5929.
Is that truly an erratum? I think an update is in order. (Who shall do that work?) _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
