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

[Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>]

Repeating this here so people don't actually have to read through the rest:

If anyone other than Tim has a doubt, I'd recommend you take a quick 
look at the attached black line - you're voting with respect to those 
changes from the currently accepted document and only those changes.  A 
NO vote leaves the -3 document in place unchanged with it's backwards 
compatibility problem.



On 9/11/2013 1:03 PM, Tim Hudson wrote:
> Just because fips186 elects to ha e restrictions does not mean we 
> should wired those into the api where we haven't previously.
>
> No one indicated that change was going in ... It was presented as just 
> adjusting their refs and handling subprime backwards compatibility 
> when not specified.

*sigh*  This was addressed multiple times on multiple calls, or did you 
not hear me when I said that this section would need to be reconciled 
with Oscar's document?  Not my problem.


> It does more than that.
>
> The comment and view stands.
>
> This was meant to be an addition to the previously accepted ballot.
>
> Tim.

Let's see now.

First you voted for the document with the changes to the manifest.
Now you want to vote against them.   (E.g. the manifest contents didn't 
change from the -3 document which you voted for to the -4 document).  
But voting against them will leave them intact on the -3 document.  Hmm...

Then you voted for the document with the language for FIPS186-4 (oscar's 
document)
Now you want to vote against text that is pretty much the same.

Seriously?  OK - moving on.


You've again misstated  the case by stating the document "wired those 
into the API" referring to the FIPS186-4 language - the text doesn't 
actually say that.  It says that a FIPS 186-4 compliant implementation 
won't use values other than those stated. It also leaves the old values 
intact in the standard for backwards compatibility.  It ALSO leaves the 
original domain parameter generator intact as a FIPS 186-2 backwards 
compatible mechanism  If you really have a problem with that particular 
text in that you don't think it says what I'm saying it says, then 
propose a change.   That would more helpful than this approach.

This is my last message on the topic.

To clarify things,  I've attached a legal blackline (e.g. a MS word 
compare) between the previously passed pkcs11-fips-186-3 and the 
currently balloted pkcs11-fips-186-4.    The marks are the ONLY changes 
between -3 and -4, and the bulk of them are fixing typos.

As Oscar previously noted, table 5 has a formatting error that will need 
to be corrected by the editor.

If anyone other than Tim has a doubt, I'd recommend you take a quick 
look at the attached black line - you're voting with respect to those 
changes from the currently accepted document and only those changes.  A 
NO vote leaves the -3 document in place unchanged with it's backwards 
compatibility problem.

Later, Mike

Attachment: pkcs11-dsa-186-3-to-4-blackline.docx
Description: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document