Subject: WG Last Call: Additional Algorithms for RSA cryptography

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:30:56 -0500

This message initiates working group Last Call for "Additional Algorithms and 
Identifiers for RSA Cryptography". As a reminder, here is the Abstract:

   This document supplements RFC 3279.  It describes the conventions 
   for using the RSASSA-PSS signature algorithm, the RSAES-OAEP key 
   transport algorithm and additional one-way hash functions with the 
   PKCS #1 version 1.5 signature algorithm in the Internet X.509 Public 
   Key Infrastructure (PKI).  Encoding formats, algorithm identifiers, 
   and parameter formats are specified. 

This is a three week Last Call.  That means it will close sometime on or after 
January 9, 2004.   The schedule has been padded with an additional week in 
light of the holidays. 

** Do not count on any further extension to Last Call!!! **

I intend to close Last Call promptly on January 9, since an S/MIME WG document 
is blocked on this document.

The URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pkix-rsa-pkalgs-01.txt

Thanks,

Tim Polk

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 08:59:33 -0500

James:

As you know, I generated an ASN.1 module as you suggest.  My co-authors 
have not accepted (or rejected) it yet.

I would prefer to stick to the same ASN.1 documents that are referenced by 
the rest of the PKIX documents.

Russ

At 12:29 PM 12/18/2003 +1000, Manger, James H wrote:

>Are the ASN.1 values going to be reformatted (to include field names)?
>Is the reference to a withdrawn ASN.1 standard going to be changed?
>
>
>----------
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Wednesday, 17 December 2003 6:31 AM
>Subject: WG Last Call: Additional Algorithms for RSA cryptography
>
>----------
>From: Steven Legg [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Thursday, 4 December 2003 3:04 PM
>
> > The changes you are claming as non-compliant are not required for the 
> 1988 version.
>
>But they're not disallowed either. Why use a notation from 1988 which is 
>deprecated by later editions of ASN.1 when there is alternative notation 
>that is valid in 1988 and all later editions of ASN.1. ?
>
>----------
>From: Phillip H. Griffin [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Friday, 5 December 2003 12:26 AM
>
>X.208 and X.209 are no longer merely deprecated. They have been withdrawn 
>as international standards since last year.