- From: Tom Gindin <tgindin@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 07:42:29 -0400
- To: reagle@w3.org
- Cc: Donald Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>, xml-encryption@w3.org
Joseph: I wish to document my view that treating the default MGF as MGF1(SHA-1) rather than MGF1(DigestMethod) is a mistake, although I appear to have been outvoted. The currently posted draft does not make clear which interpretation is to be used ("using the mask generator function MGF1 specified in RFC 2437"), and the apparent reason for the defaulting in PKCS#1 is that it is easiest to default values to a literal constant in ASN.1. There is no syntax defined in the draft by which the MGF1's digest method can be specified, unlike in PKCS#1. While Don is correct that there are no reasons why the DigestMethod and the MGF1's digest method must match, the reasons for increasing the range size of one apply almost equally strongly to the other, and increases in the range size of a digest method are IMO the principal reason for the use of an algorithm other than SHA-1 in this context. Current implementations which use SHA-1 for both the DigestMethod and the MGF's digest method would be unaffected by either interpretation. Nobody has stated AFAIK that they have implemented anything other than SHA-1 for either digest method. Tom Gindin Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>@w3.org on 04/25/2002 04:16:26 PM Please respond to reagle@w3.org Sent by: xml-encryption-request@w3.org To: Donald Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>, xml-encryption@w3.org cc: Subject: Re: FW: Re: rsa/oaep On Thursday 25 April 2002 00:40, Donald Eastlake 3rd wrote: > Seems to me that we should stick with the current implemented URI for > the currently implemented algorithm with the current parameters. This sounds like the best bet to me. What we have does work, and it might not be the best format for future parameters but that bridge can be crossed when encountered. (A new identifier/namespace and all the parameters desired can be proposed.) So I'm going to stick with the text I have now in [1] and consider the issue closed unless someone wants to document their dissent. [1] http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/Drafts/xmlenc-core/Overview.html#sec-RSA-OAEP $Revision: 1.184 $ on $Date: 2002/04/17 13:17:07 $ GMT
Received on Friday, 26 April 2002 07:43:09 UTC