- From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 12:11:30 -0800
- To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
- Cc: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACvaWvZtOGg3xNG_8spXitZAnAwds0hB2pM1YS7_RQdTjpM91Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> wrote: > > > > > *From:* Mark Watson [mailto:watsonm@netflix.com] > *Sent:* Monday, February 24, 2014 10:06 AM > *To:* Jim Schaad > *Cc:* Ryan Sleevi; public-webcrypto@w3.org > *Subject:* Re: Diffie-Hellman question > > > > So, if the libraries people are using to implement WebCrypto right now > support only PKCS#3, shouldn't we stick with that for this first version ? > Just as we have "RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5" we could have "DH-PKCS3" and later > introduce X9.42. > > > > Not supporting a full set of parameters is not acceptable. The WebCrypto > implementation can always reduce from the X9.42 parameters to PKCS#3 > internally if it needs to. > > > > That would mean that in this version we would not be able to support > export except in raw format. I would then suggest that we support import > only in that format too. It's not quite clear what import is for, though, > except perhaps to enable use of the DH Phase II primitive with a private > value generated some way other than deriveKey: we would need a > DhImportParams dictionary to provide the prime and generator. Importing a > DH public key is useless, because the only think a Key object representing > a DH public key can be used for is to export the Public Value. > > > > Again – I do not believe that raw makes any sense for asymmetric > algorithms. You always need to have the parameters with the private key > value. Before doing a key agreement step, the implementation MUST check > that both sides have the same set of parameters. > > > > RAW exists for symmetric algorithms. Don’t use it for asymmetric > algorithms > > > > Jim > > > > > > ...Mark > > > > > Jim, Can you please configure your email client to use a more reasonable reply form? Please see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2014Feb/0133.html to see how your replies are entirely lost in the (official) archives. You can see some of the mail-client gotchas that WebApps has captured at https://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WorkMode#Mail_List_Policy.2C_Usage.2C_Etiquette.2C_etc .
Received on Monday, 24 February 2014 20:11:57 UTC