Fcc: +sent
Subject: Re: X9.42 and RFC2459 inconsistency?
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 17 Aug 1999 11:26:55 +0200."
<3(_dot_)0(_dot_)5(_dot_)32(_dot_)19990817112655(_dot_)00ac2100(_at_)mail(_dot_)cost(_dot_)se>
--------
In message
<3(_dot_)0(_dot_)5(_dot_)32(_dot_)19990817112655(_dot_)00ac2100(_at_)mail(_dot_)cost(_dot_)se>you
write:
Andrew,
In the RFC2459, section 7.3.2, it says:
"The Diffie-Hellman OID supported by this profile is defined by ANSI X9.42"
I am not sure what you mean by the "X9.42 oid with the pfc 2459 semantics".
What I said. The OID in RFC 2459 is taken from X9.42, but the semantics
specifed below are different to the ones specified in X9.42. In RFC
2459, the subjectPublicKey is a bitstring wrapping an encoded integer
which has the value of the public key. This is consistent with the
treatment of DSA and RSA, but contradicts X9.42, which specifies that
the subjectPublicKey is a bitstring which has the value of the public
key.
This is something that PKIX may have to push back on X9.42 on, so it's
not clear which will be the winning semantics.
Andrew.