W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcrypto@w3.org > May 2012

Re: ECC vs RSA, and Similar Conflicts

From: Richard L. Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 08:19:11 -0400
Cc: Nadim <nadim@nadim.cc>, public-webcrypto@w3.org
Message-Id: <21326755-047E-4B99-AD44-D8CB7626D21B@bbn.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
+1

Where there's a large deployed base -- as with RSA and SHA1 -- there's a de facto use case.  It is not our job to dictate to developers which algorithms they use.

--Richard



On May 10, 2012, at 12:58 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:

> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Nadim <nadim@nadim.cc> wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>> I think we need to have a discussion regarding whether the API will
>> exclusively implement (and rely on) newer, faster standards (such as ECDH,
>> ECDSA) or whether there will be a larger dependence on RSA, either for
>> fallback or stronger compatibility reasons.
>> 
>> If it is eventually decided that not only the best available per-task
>> algorithm is implemented, but rather, all possible algorithms, where do we
>> draw the line? Do we implement SHA1 in addition to SHA2? Does that also
>> warrant an MD5 implementation?
>> 
>> Personally, I believe that focusing only on the newer, more efficient
>> standards (such as ECC) is a better idea, but I stand very humbly by my
>> opinion and a much more interested in listening to the group's opinions.
> 
> I don't really think it's a good idea to design a system which can't
> interoperate
> with the vast majority of signed data objects on the Internet, which use
> SHA-1 and RSA.
> 
> -Ekr
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 10 May 2012 12:19:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:10 UTC