Re: Syslog-sign: RSA support?
Jon Callas <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.syslog |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Aug 11, 2008, at 5:49 AM, Martin Schütte wrote: > Jon Callas schrieb: >> But that's what the existing consensus is. Do we have to, at this >> late date, throw out the existing consensus and put in RSA and CAs? > > I think we can agree not to have any notion of CAs in syslog-sign, > besides the simple fact that users of PKIX and OpenPGP keys might > use one witout affecting syslog-sign. > > > But what would be necessary to include RSA and ECDSA? As far as I > see we just had to assign two additional VERsion digits values for > the Signature Scheme. I agree that it's not all that difficult to add it in, but the draft has gone this far with WG consensus that it is not needed. I don't think we can add it without pulling it out of last call and re-opening it up. I might be wrong, but nonetheless, Pasi Eronen asked the question of why it was DSA-only, and we answered. I don't believe we have to add in RSA. During last call, ADs ask a number of good, tough questions that don't require negating the WG consensus. And since the document in its present state is a product of WG consensus, we need a semblance of that to add in a major new feature like a new public key algorithm. Jon _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog