|
block padding formats: msg#00264ietf.x509
Hello, reading draft-ietf-pkix-ipki-part1-07 and draft-ietf-pkix-ipki-part1-09 I noticed the following difference: draft-ietf-pkix-ipki-part1-07 states: > The signature algorithm with SHA-1 and the RSA encryption algorithm > is defined in by the OSI Interoperability Workshop in [OIW]. Padding > conventions described in PKCS #1, section 8.1, must be used. As > defined in [OIW], the ASN.1 object identifier used to identify this > signature algorithm is: > > sha1WithRSASignature OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { > iso(1) identified-organization(3) oiw(14) > secsig(3) algorithm(2) 29 } > draft-ietf-pkix-ipki-part1-09 states: > The signature algorithm with SHA-1 and the RSA encryption algorithm > is implemented using the padding and encoding conventions described > in PKCS #1 [RFC 2313]. The message digest is computed using the SHA-1 > hash algorithm. The ASN.1 object identifier used to identify this > signature algorithm is: > > sha-1WithRSAEncryption OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { > iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) > pkcs-1(1) 5 } Why did you replace the OIW ObjId with the RSA ObjId ? Is it because the OIW ObjId 1.3.14.3.2.29 doesn't identify PKCS #1 padding but 9796-1 padding ? Has the draft-ietf-pkix-ipki-part1-07 been wrong at this point ? Best regards - Petra Glöckner
|
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Date: | Finding paths, Was:Re: Domains of Trust for PKIX: 00264, Nada Kapidzic Cicovic |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Authentication vs. binding signature, and ephemeral vs. permanent key usage: 00264, Eric Murray |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Authentication vs. binding signature, and ephemeral vs. permanent key usagei: 00264, Peter Gutmann |
| Next by Thread: | Re: block padding formats: 00264, Russ Housley |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
| News | FAQ | advertise |