Sound good to me; if the group agrees to remove certificate_types, I'll make this change in the PR.
-----Original Message----- From: Ilari Liusvaara [mailto:ilari.liusva...@elisanet.fi] Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 8:33 AM To: Andrei Popov Cc: tls@ietf.org Subject: Re: [TLS] Commentary on the client authentication presentation slides On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 05:01:37AM +0000, Andrei Popov wrote: > > > - The certificate_types field in CertificateRequest is pretty much > > useless, since all supported algorithms are of signature type. > If the signature_algorithms extension officially becomes MTI, then > perhaps we can discus getting rid of certificate_types in the > CertificateRequest. Except we may want to use this field when we > introduce new certificate types (e.g. something like IEEE1609 certs). Don't confuse signature_algorithms extension and supported_signature_algorithms field of CertificateRequest. Those two carry similar tasks in opposite directions, except that ssa is REQUIRED with signature certs. There are seemingly no defaults for SSA, so it has to be non-empty for signature certs to work at all. And all present types of TLS 1.3 key exchange can only use signature certs. As for IEEE1609 certs, those are negotiated via certificate format negotiation, which is entierely separate mechanism (described in RFC 7250), not involving CertificateRequest message at all. -Ilari _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
