Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> wrote: > As written, that seems to allow a notion of "consistent" that is not > strictly 1:1, but all of the curves defined so far only have that 1:1 > mapping, and trying to use any other "kty" for an existing curve would run > into interop problems with existing implementations that reject other "kty" > values for that curve.
It seems to me that we think it's always gonna be 1:1, but that we admit that
we can't predict the future, and so we are providing some extra rope.
It also seems that we might also be thinking that there might be other ways
to encode the keys (into bytes), but that mostly it is the case that we have
a single encoding that we stick to.
(Why did we call it "EC2". Huh)
> Do we expect a strict relationship where each curve has exactly one "kty"
> that it's used with? If not, in what scenario(s) would there be multiple
> "kty" values to use with a single curve?
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
