Subject: RE: pk-init-29

From: "Liqiang(Larry) Zhu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 12:00:45 -0800

In response to your comments, I will add the following error codes.

     KDC_ERR_HASH_IN_CERT_NOT_ACCEPTED          77
     KDC_ERR_HASH_IN_KDF_NOT_ACCEPTED           78
     KDC_ERR_DIGEST_IN_SIGNED_DATA_NOT_ACCEPTED 79

And the descriptions of these errors, plus a requirement that these errors take typed data.

I will pose all the text changes so far later this week once I receive the comments from Jeff (jaltman).

Thanks,

-- Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Hartman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 11:48 AM
To: Liqiang(Larry) Zhu
Cc: Love Hörnquist Åstrand; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: pk-init-29

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

    Liqiang(Larry)> IMO, crypto-agility does not mean all algorithms
    Liqiang(Larry)> have to be negotiated on the wire. 

No, that's exactly what it means.

For Love's initial question it is fine if the client sends all the
algorithms it supports because if the server returns an error then the
client cannot succeed.

We do need to look at hash agility both for the DH KDF and for
signatures and for cert selection.  We don't need to support
negotiation today but we do need to confirm we can add it in a
backward compatible manner.

In other words it needs to be the case that a KDC must return a well
defined and unique error for each use of hashes and it must be the
case that this error is intended to take TD.