On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Valery Smyslov wrote:
I don't think negotiation is needed. It's enough if each side announces its
capabilities,
the same way it is done in RFC7427 with hash functions. And the easiest way
to do
it is to add pseudo-hash value "RSASSA-PSS supported" into the hash
algorithms registry.
In this case each side will announces that it supports some set of hash
algorithms in signature and
announces whether RSASSA-PSS is supported. I understand that it is a clear
protocol hack
and I don't want to follow this way, but it is the easiest path. Can you
suggest better
solution (apart from "do nothing")?
I'm really against this solution. As you said, we can expect more of
this with ECC variants, and it will just be a large cluttering of the
integ registry.
What's wrong with adding a new notify type that can be used on the
initiator as well as on the responder? And so doesn't have the problem
of favouring the "old ways" for compatibility?
Paul
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
