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 <housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 12:48 AM
To: Peter Gutmann <pgut001(_at_)cs(_dot_)auckland(_dot_)ac(_dot_)nz>
Cc: Eric Rescorla <ekr(_at_)rtfm(_dot_)com>; Charlie Zhuo
<charlie(_dot_)zhuo(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com>; Paul Hoffman
<paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)icann(_dot_)org>; Ben Kaduk
<kaduk(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu>; IETF SMIME <smime(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re: [smime] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC2631 (5480)
On Aug 27, 2018, at 11:43 AM, Peter Gutmann
<pgut001(_at_)cs(_dot_)auckland(_dot_)ac(_dot_)nz> wrote:
Russ Housley <housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com> 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
smime(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smime