Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC2631 (5480)

I assume that there should be no serious implementation issues, provided that the correct procedure described in section 2.2.1.2 is followed.
Furthermore, some implementation request that value "g" be manually assigned/specified.

This errata aims only to correct the description to keep text, formula and procedure consistent, and to avoid confusions.

Regards,
Charlie

-----Original Message-----
From: Russ Housley <[email protected]> 
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 12:48 AM
To: Peter Gutmann <[email protected]>
Cc: Eric Rescorla <[email protected]>; Charlie Zhuo <[email protected]>; Paul Hoffman <[email protected]>; Ben Kaduk <[email protected]>; IETF SMIME <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [smime] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC2631 (5480)



> On Aug 27, 2018, at 11:43 AM, Peter Gutmann <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Russ Housley <[email protected]> writes:
> 
>> Wow, this has gone a very long time without anyone noticing.  As far 
>> as I can tell, it have not resulted in any implementation errors.
> 
> Has it resulted in any implementations?
> 
> (That's a serious question.  What actually uses X9.42 DH, rather than 
> PKCS #3 DH?  That is, I know that some standards reference that RFC, 
> but what actually implements it and uses it in the real world?).

I am aware of an implementation that was done 17 or 18 years ago.  I do not know if it is still being used.

Russ

_______________________________________________
smime mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smime