Re: Coding Of Public Signature Algorithm Identifier

Marcus Leech wrote:
> 
> It looks like a couple of bytes and a new registry is what we need.
> 
> I'm thinking "suites" here, with a given byte value representing a
>   "signature suite".
> 
>   RSA_SHA1: 0x00
>   RSA_MD5:  0x01
>   DSA_SHA1: 0x03

You have my vote on that approach.  The actual suite specification
would obviously have to have more detail than that, specifically:
  - What hash output length should we use? SHA1 produces 160 bits,
    but there are security benefits in truncating to e.g. 128 bits.
  - What is the asymmetric key length? (Or can this simply be 
    inferred from the downloaded public key?)
... but other than those (implementation) details, I'm all for it.


And on a related topic:
Personally, I do not see a convincing reason to make this list
any longer than a single suite initially. (I've already pointed
out RSA encrypted SHA1 as my personal preference.)


/Mike, off to sneak a peak at draft -02. It's been 2+ years since I 
       last read the itrace draft...
-- 
Mikael Olsson, Clavister AB
Storgatan 12, Box 393, SE-891 28 ÖRNSKÖLDSVIK, Sweden
Phone: +46 (0)660 29 92 00   Mobile: +46 (0)70 26 222 05
Fax: +46 (0)660 122 50       WWW: http://www.clavister.com