Subject: RE: Should DH really be the mandatory to implement part of pkinit

From: "Liqiang(Larry) Zhu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:33:09 -0700

Sam Hartman wrote:
> add DH as an optional feature in a following draft.

Not an option. We need DH for PFS for signing-only certs.

Larry
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Sam Hartman
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 11:15 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Should DH really be the mandatory to implement part of pkinit

Paul has just made a convincing argument that we have a fair bit more
work to do on DH for pkinit.

First, I'd like to apologize for my part in blocking this work.  Paul
and Larry made this argument months ago.  I hoped to avoid the issue
with truncation.  At the time I believed that was a valid technical
choice and through confusion this working group ended up convincing
itself of that fact.

However we're now in the position where we are significantly behind
schedule on pkinit and the DH situation is fairly unclear.  If we remove
DH from the pkinit document we could probably get the RSA parts of it
through fairly quickly and add DH as an optional feature in a following
draft.

I don't think this is particularly desirable either to Microsoft or
Cable Labs, but I will throw it out as an option.

--Sam

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:34:51 -0400

>>>>> "Liqiang(Larry)" == Liqiang(Larry) Zhu <[email-masked]> writes:

    >> add DH as an optional feature in a following draft.

    Liqiang(Larry)> Not an option. We need DH for PFS for signing-only
    Liqiang(Larry)> certs.

I said you wouldn't like it;)

Does anyone actually use signing only certs these days?