Mike,
Thanks for your feedback.
I'll be changing this fix to introduce new algorithm Strings to specify
the P1363 format. These strings will be of the form:
<digest>with<encryption>in<format>Format
For example:
SHA1withDSAinP1363Format
SHA1withECDSAinP1363Format
The intent is to reduce potential confusion with the extended algorithm
Strings specifying MGF functions (<digest>with<encryption>and<mgf>) by
using the word "in" for conjunction and to append "Format" to the format
name.
Would you be ok with this solution?
Thanks,
Jason
On 1/29/15 7:27 AM, Sean Mullan wrote:
On 01/27/2015 05:40 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
So what I'm concerned with is surprise. I'm also concerned with
"default signature formats" from new providers. Right now, I know if
I ask for ECDSA, the output of Signature will be in a very specific
format, and the math will match what's in FIPS 186-4, X9.62 and SECG.
I'm really uncomfortable about changing that. I think the algorithm
name should map to one specific suite of math and input/output
formats.
Yes, your argument makes sense, and we will change the fix to use new
algorithm Strings that specify the P1363 format. Jason will be following
up with more details on that.
Thanks for weighing in on this issue and spending the time to explain
your concerns.
--Sean
