Subject: Re: [Trans] [trans] #27 (rfc6962-bis): Signature & hash alg specification

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 13:33:40 -0000

#27: Signature & hash alg specification

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 We would be happy with EC signatures only, but we hear that some people
 are still concerned about IP.

 So, we have to provide an alternative for those people - RSA is considered
 safe, if slower and bigger, so that is what we propose.

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |       Owner:  draft-ietf-trans-
  [email-masked]           |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect       |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major        |   Milestone:
Component:  rfc6962-bis  |     Version:
 Severity:  Active WG    |  Resolution:
  Document               |
 Keywords:               |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/27#comment:1>
trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 13:34:23 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * status:  new => closed
 * resolution:   => fixed

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |       Owner:  draft-ietf-trans-
  [email-masked]           |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect       |      Status:  closed
 Priority:  major        |   Milestone:
Component:  rfc6962-bis  |     Version:
 Severity:  Active WG    |  Resolution:  fixed
  Document               |
 Keywords:               |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/27#comment:2>
trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/>