Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Inconsistent normative language regarding key reuse #78

Open
danvangeest opened this issue Oct 24, 2024 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #109
Open

Inconsistent normative language regarding key reuse #78

danvangeest opened this issue Oct 24, 2024 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #109
Assignees

Comments

@danvangeest
Copy link

Section 4.1 says:

In order to ensure fresh keys, the key generation functions MUST be
executed for both component algorithms. Compliant parties MUST NOT
use or import component keys that are used in other contexts,
combinations, or by themselves as keys for standalone algorithm use.

Also I suggest "use, import, or export component keys..."

Section 11.2 says:

Therefore, it is
RECOMMENDED to avoid key reuse and always generate fresh component
keys for a new composite. It is also RECOMMENDED that CAs performing
revocation checks on a composite key should also check both component
keys independently.

The normative language needs to be consistent; these should either be MUST/REQUIRED, or SHOULD/RECOMMENDED.

@johngray-dev
Copy link
Collaborator

I agree. We will make the language consistent. We will change it to MUST/REQUIRED.

@janklaussner janklaussner self-assigned this Jan 30, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants