[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [pkcs11] CKM_EC_EDWARDS_KEY_PAIR_GEN
Dieter, Thanks for the reply. I agree with your opinion, but that’s exactly the issue I’m trying to raise. It’s an opinion and it doesn’t carry the weight of the spec. In this case I’d argue that the spec should just list the values to be used rather than point folks to things that are open for interpretation. Sincerely, Jonathan From: Dieter Bong <Dieter.Bong@utimaco.com> Hi Jonathan, The RFCs are quite clear in my opinion:
curve25519 is thus a Montgomery curve, and must be used with CKM_EC_MONTGOMERY_KEY_PAIR_GEN, and edwards25519 is an Edwards curve to be used with CKM_EC_EDWARDS_KEY_PAIR_GEN. That said, SoftHSM is right and nCipher is wrong in my opinion. Best regards, Dieter From: pkcs11@lists.oasis-open.org <pkcs11@lists.oasis-open.org> On Behalf Of Jonathan Schulze-Hewett All, For CKM_EC_EDWARDS_KEY_PAIR_GEN, what are the curveNames? SoftHSM2 wants edwards25519. nCipher wants curve25519. The spec simply refers me to the RFCs. The OIDs are pretty clear, but the curveName option appears to be open to interpretation. Considering it’s two values, perhaps the spec could just list what they are or otherwise provide some specificity? Sincerely, Jonathan Jonathan Schulze-Hewett Director of Development 708-445-1704 (o) | 708-822-2926 (m) schulze-hewett@infoseccorp.com
|
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]