RE: Support optional private value length for DH PKCS#3 ?

Sorry - to clarify, I don't think we should add l. Adding q or not is a separate discussion that we've already had, and I assumed was closed already.

So for the PKCS#3 format, I would just leave out the l parameter.

From: Mark Watson [mailto:watsonm@netflix.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 9:29 AM
To: Vijay Bharadwaj
Cc: public-webcrypto@w3.org
Subject: Re: Support optional private value length for DH PKCS#3 ?

Ok, but what I am drafting right now - at least to have something concrete and complete - is just PKCS#3 and so does not have the q value.

...Mark

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Vijay Bharadwaj <Vijay.Bharadwaj@microsoft.com<mailto:Vijay.Bharadwaj@microsoft.com>> wrote:
I've never seen that used in practice, and the approach of defining q tends to be more commonly used (e.g. SP800-56A doesn't mention l at all). I would prefer to not introduce it at all.

From: Mark Watson [mailto:watsonm@netflix.com<mailto:watsonm@netflix.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 8:32 AM
To: public-webcrypto@w3.org<mailto:public-webcrypto@w3.org>
Subject: Support optional private value length for DH PKCS#3 ?

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24804


PKCS#3 defined an optional parameter, l, which specifies the private value length.



Should we expose this in the WebCrypto API ?

...Mark