<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I'd also strongly prefer to pick one as standard name for RSA PSS
signature and use it consistently.</p>
<p>Here are the possible choices for RSA PSS standard names:</p>
<ol>
<li>RSA-PSS</li>
<li>RSASSA-PSS</li>
<li>RSA/PSS <br>
</li>
<li>RSAPSS<br>
</li>
</ol>
<p>#1,#2 are from 3rd party provider, #3 is what I have in current
webrev, #4 is just a new alternative in case people may prefer it
over #1.</p>
<p>My preference is #1, #2, and #4. My reason for steering away from
#3 is due to that "/" is used by Cipher transformation string.
Though Signature algorithm is separate from Cipher transformation,
but RSA can be used for encryption and having that "/" is
potentially very confusing.</p>
<p>Comments? Please share your preference soon so I can update the
webrev accordingly...</p>
Thanks,<br>
Valerie<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/18/2018 11:36 AM, Xuelei Fan
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4762f41c-cc81-fb9c-5752-4f835752567e@oracle.com">On
4/18/2018 11:25 AM, Sean Mullan wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 4/18/18 12:52 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">The algorithm name decomposer
implementation for algorithm restrictions depends on the
pattern:
<br>
<digest>with<encryption>
<br>
<br>
Using the same "encryption" name for signature and PKCS#1
could be easier for applications if there is a need to
decompose the algorithms.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Hmm, so do you mean this is a problem if you specify the
signature algorithm as "RSA-PSS" and require that the digest
algorithm be specified as a parameter to the API? Or something
else? Not sure I understand you but I have a feeling you are
raising a good point ...
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
The concern is from the names BC and Andriod used:
<br>
<br>
SHA*withRSA/PSS
<br>
RSASSA-PSS (name from PKCS#1)
<br>
<br>
The signature algorithm decomposing SHA*withRSA/PSS and "SHA*" and
"RSA/PSS". If the PKCS#1 name use "RSASSA-PSS", it is tricky to
map "RSA/PSS" to "RSASSA-PSS". I'm suggesting use a consistent
name. Either "SHA*withRSA/PSS"/"RSA/PSS" or
"SHA*withRSASSA-PSS"/"RSASSA-PSS".
<br>
<br>
Xuelei
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">--Sean
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
Xuelei
<br>
<br>
On 4/16/2018 11:40 AM, Sean Mullan wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 4/13/18 3:25 PM, Bradford Wetmore
wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">SunRsaSignEntries.java
<br>
----------------------
<br>
145: Where did you come up with this convention for your
aliases?
<br>
<br>
SHA1withRSA-PSS
<br>
<br>
I see Bouncy Castle[1] and Android[2] are both using:
<br>
<br>
SHA*withRSA/PSS
<br>
RSASSA-PSS (name from PKCS#1)
<br>
<br>
[1]
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java/blob/master/prov/src/main/java/org/bouncycastle/jcajce/provider/asymmetric/RSA.java">https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java/blob/master/prov/src/main/java/org/bouncycastle/jcajce/provider/asymmetric/RSA.java</a>
<br>
[2]
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://developer.android.com/reference/java/security/Signature.html">https://developer.android.com/reference/java/security/Signature.html</a>
<br>
<br>
but we have neither style.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Since these standard names have not yet been defined, we
don't necessarily have to be consistent, but I don't see a
good enough reason for us to name them differently, so to
help with compatibility I would go with the names above.
<br>
<br>
--Sean
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>