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

On Feb 25, 2014 9:34 AM, "Vijay Bharadwaj" <Vijay.Bharadwaj@microsoft.com>
wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>

+1

>
> 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> 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]
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 8:32 AM
>> To: 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
>
>