RFR CSR for 8213400: Support choosing curve name in keytool keypair generation

[Adam Petcher]

I'm missing the motivation behind this question. Is the current set of 
aliases causing some problem? Are they incomplete? Why is it bad that 
"X9.62 prime256v1" works but "prime256v1" doesn't?

On 11/7/2018 10:05 PM, Weijun Wang wrote:
> In CurveDB.java, we have
>
> add("secp256r1 [NIST P-256, X9.62 prime256v1]", "1.2.840.10045.3.1.7", PD,
>      "FFFFFFFF00000001000000000000000000000000FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF",
>      "FFFFFFFF00000001000000000000000000000000FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFC",
>      "5AC635D8AA3A93E7B3EBBD55769886BC651D06B0CC53B0F63BCE3C3E27D2604B",
>      "6B17D1F2E12C4247F8BCE6E563A440F277037D812DEB33A0F4A13945D898C296",
>      "4FE342E2FE1A7F9B8EE7EB4A7C0F9E162BCE33576B315ECECBB6406837BF51F5",
>      "FFFFFFFF00000000FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFBCE6FAADA7179E84F3B9CAC2FC632551",
>      1, nameSplitPattern);
>
> So the aliases of secp256r1 are now "NIST P-256" and "X9.62 prime256v1". Do we really want to keep the organization name prefix after JDK-8208156? The alias can be used in ECGenParameterSpec and the proposed keytool -groupname option.
>
> The following shows this behavior.
>
>> jshell> KeyPairGenerator.getInstance("EC")
>> $3 ==> java.security.KeyPairGenerator$Delegate at 64bfbc86
>>
>> jshell> $3.initialize(new ECGenParameterSpec("secp256r1"))
>>
>> jshell> $3.initialize(new ECGenParameterSpec("prime256v1"))
>> |  Exception java.security.InvalidAlgorithmParameterException: Unknown curve name: prime256v1
>> |        at ECKeyPairGenerator.initialize (ECKeyPairGenerator.java:103)
>> |        at KeyPairGenerator$Delegate.initialize (KeyPairGenerator.java:699)
>> |        at KeyPairGenerator.initialize (KeyPairGenerator.java:436)
>> |        at (#6:1)
>>
>> jshell> $3.initialize(new ECGenParameterSpec("X9.62 prime256v1"))
> Thanks
> Max
>
>> On Nov 7, 2018, at 11:48 PM, Weijun Wang <weijun.wang at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> CSR updated. With such a generalized option, I won't recommend -groupname over -keysize now, although I still intend to print some warning for EC.
>>
>> Please take a review.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Max
>>