W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-encryption@w3.org > April 2002

Re: FW: Re: rsa/oaep

From: Jiandong Guo <jguo@phaos.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 16:41:52 -0400
Message-ID: <3CBF2F90.7BDA871B@phaos.com>
To: reagle@w3.org
CC: xml-encryption@w3.org

Joseph Reagle wrote:

> Otherwise, it looks like we have a couple of options:
> 1. (the present scheme): the hash is user specified; mgf is SHA-1.
> 2. the hash and mgf is user specified and they are always the same.
> 3. the hash and mgf are independently user specified.

Option 2 looks odd to me. First of all we DEFAULT our Mask Generation Function
to MGF1
(Mask Generation Function does not necessarily rely on a hash function. There
be a MGF2 based, say, on AES) and then we mix up the hash function and the hash

function for MGF1 in our syntax and rely on text explanation to make things

If we want to support new things, we should think carefully how to get the
syntax clear
and extensible. Simply give a new interpretation of the existing syntax doesn't
sound a good practice
to me. By the way, MGF1 is not a hash function. A hash function is used in the
of MGF1.

Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 16:40:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:03 UTC