Re: [pkcs11] Groups - Ballot reminder: "Proposal for changes to DSA mechanism"

[Tim Hudson <tjh@cryptsoft.com>]

I've been traveling so slower to respond on this ballot than usual - but I note a whole pile of issues with the proposed text.
I also note Mike's comment that he thinks this replaces the previous ballot. My understanding was this was meant to be a proposal about FIPS186-4 and how to handle the SUBPRIME backwards compatibility issue - but as usual it includes more than that I was expecting.

Why does this proposal elect to preclude choices of any subprime size other than the fixed list noted and also precludes the use of prime sizes other than the specific fixed value?
This is a pretty substantial change.

Why is there is a list of manifest constants included in this document?
Why is the list incomplete?
Why does it contain a value which differs from v2.30?
Why does it contain two overlapping definitions?

That is also departing from the previous approaches used and departing the from the previous ballot as well in terms of including manifest constants.

#define CKM_AES_CMAC_GENERAL                         0x0000108B
#define CKM_AES_CMAC_GENERAL                         0x00001089

Why does it contain two overlapping definitions?

#define CKM_AES_CMAC_GENERAL                         0x00001089
#define CKM_AES_CTS                                  0x00001089

As it stands that ballot simply cannot be passed including that information.

The manifest constants should not have been included in the proposal.

I suggest those who have already voted yes to this proposal and don't have a clear answer to the above questions change their votes from yes to no.

Tim.