RFC8032 isn't a draft anymore.

This commit is contained in:
Isis Lovecruft 2017-03-15 21:25:44 +00:00
parent 4cd8ffd797
commit b5ae6c4447
Failed to extract signature

View file

@ -100,13 +100,12 @@ The signatures produced by this library are malleable, as discussed in
We could eliminate the malleability property by multiplying by the curve We could eliminate the malleability property by multiplying by the curve
cofactor, however, this would cause our implementation to *not* match the cofactor, however, this would cause our implementation to *not* match the
behaviour of every other implementation in existence. While there is, as of behaviour of every other implementation in existence. As of this writing,
this writing, a [RFC 8032](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8032), "Edwards-Curve Digital
[draft RFC for EdDSA signatures](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8032) which Signature Algorithm (EdDSA)," advises that the stronger check should be done.
specifies that the stronger check should be done (and while we agree that the While we agree that the stronger check should be done, it is our opinion that
stronger check should be done), it is our opinion that one doesn't get to one shouldn't get to change the definition of "ed25519 verification" a decade
change the definition of "ed25519 verification" a decade after the fact, after the fact, breaking compatibility with every other implementation.
declaring every implementation (including one's own) to be non-conformant.
In short, if malleable signatures are bad for your protocol, don't use them. In short, if malleable signatures are bad for your protocol, don't use them.
Consider using a curve25519-based Verifiable Random Function (VRF), such as Consider using a curve25519-based Verifiable Random Function (VRF), such as