Closed TJ-91 closed 3 months ago
Do we need this until we can even produce a SLH-DSA compliant signature?
@wussler We don't strictly need them yet, that's true. We had assigned IDs before and the reason we hadn't in the meantime was that the experimental code space was too restricted. Since that's not an issue any more, I re-assigned them.
But we can also leave them unassigned for a while longer if you think that's better (but I don't see a particular reason).
I would avoid doing them now to leave some space for the other drafts in the adoption call. We can always see how it goes once we do have the SLH-DSA algorithms to make the test vectors.
Edit: if you agree I propose to leave this PR open with the postponed
label
Ok, let's wait with assigning IDs for now. I'm closing this PR since the changes are too minor to be worth keeping around.
I assigned code points 102 - 104 to the three SLH-DSA algorithms now. We can also do 104, 109, 110 or something like that, if there are concerns with using the lower experimental codepoints.
Fixes #105 by removing the now outdated sentence about unassigned code points.