RE: Comments on draft-allman-dkim-base-00.txt

["Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

One thing we found very useful in XKMS was to have a set of examples
that showed the complete signature generation process, complete with
private key values and intermediate result values (SHA hash etc.). 

These helped a great deal during interoperability testing and also
helped get convergence on the document text as inplementers could
immediately see where there was ambiguity.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-mailsig@xxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-ietf-mailsig@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael Thomas
> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 11:53 AM
> To: Florian Weimer
> Cc: EKR; ietf-mailsig@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Comments on draft-allman-dkim-base-00.txt
> 
> 
> 
> Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>Also, "RSA" isn't a single function because of the padding 
> issue. You 
> >>need to specify PKCS#1 something or other. There's a 
> normative ref to 
> >>RFC 3447 but nothing in the text.
> > 
> > 
> > By the way, dk-milter invokes OpenSSL with 
> RSA_PKCS1_PADDING (whatever 
> > that is).  If a different algorithm is used, it shouldn't be called 
> > "rsa-sha1", I guess.
> > 
> > (The description in the draft looks very much like unpadded 
> hashed RSA 
> > signatures, which have already been broken for this sort of
> > application.)
> 
> Right -- I agree with EKR on this one: we should just 
> reference the algorithm and not try to explain it. We were 
> trying to get this ironed out before the draft deadline but 
> ran out of time.
> 
> And yes, we use RSA_PKCS1_PADDING.
> 
> 		Mike
> 
> 
>