[Servercert-wg] EXTERNAL: Re: [cabfpub] Interest in Ed25519 and/or Ed448?

[Ryan Sleevi]

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 12:03 PM Mehner, Carl <Carl.Mehner at usaa.com> wrote:

> Hi Ryan,
>
> From: Ryan Sleevi via Servercert-wg <servercert-wg at cabforum.org
> > It looks like you snipped some of the follow-up discussion that
> clarified this. Was that intentional?
>
> I recall you mentioned, “the benefits are significantly outweighed by the
> costs” but it appears that you neglected to say what those costs were. That
> said, there’s also a note about hashing this subject out in F2F meetings,
> so there may be more behind that than what’s available on this mailing list
> (I couldn’t find anything in meeting minutes either that seems to
> adequately address this).
>

I'm not sure where that quote is being attributed to?  The specific
discussion continued at
https://cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/2018-December/000484.html ,
and shows why the framing that was proposed by Phillip (and endorsed by
Kurt's reply) was problematic.

In terms of F2F discussions, this was discussed pretty extensively at
Meeting 39 -
https://cabforum.org/2016/10/19/2016-10-19-20-f2f-meeting-39-minutes/#Non-FIPS-algorithms-for-customer-public-keys-and-certificate-signing
-
and continued at Meeting 40 -
https://cabforum.org/2017/03/22/2017-03-22-f2f-meeting-40-minutes/#Process-for-Adoption-of-Post-SHA-2-Algorithms

The IETF TLS WG discussed at length the challenges with SPKI algorithms, in
the context of a much older algorithm - RSA-PSS - and the compatibility and
interoperability problems that can be had. This is why the TLS 1.3 design
is what it is.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/attachments/20200326/b594c661/attachment.html>