On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 17:23 +0100, Niels Möller wrote: > >> Simplest would be to just drop these requirements from > >> dsa_generate_keypair, and let it do whatever the caller asks for. Do you > >> think that makes sense? > > Sounds reasonable. Nettle is low-level anyway. > > I'll strive for that then. It's some work to support arbitrary p_size > > q_size, though. I've spent some of the day looking into pocklington's > theorem and variants again. The cases q_size < p_size/2 and q_size > > p_size / 2 need different handling.
I think having a limitation that q_size < p_size/2 is pretty much reasonable. The recommendations for DH parameters have q_size << p_size/2. > I think I can do that *almost* without breaking source-level > compatibility. API draft: Looks reasonable. > THis is a change of an advertised function in the API, and it existing > code. Not sure what to do, either, give a new name to the new function. > Or rename the old function, and let applications do preprocessor tricks > like > > #ifdef dsa_generate_keypair_old > #undef dsa_generate_keypair > #define dsa_generate_keypair dsa_generate_keypair_old > #endif I don't think it makes much sense to keep the old function if the ABI breaks anyway. It's not that big deal of a change, but it's up to you. regards, Nikos _______________________________________________ nettle-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lysator.liu.se/mailman/listinfo/nettle-bugs
