• Feature Name: openssl-interface
• Start Date: 2019-03-08
• RFC PR:
• Ursa Issue:
• Version: 1

Summary

This RFC proposes how we can support all of OpenSSL as a provider for cryptographic primitives such as encryption, decryption, signing, verifying, and hashing.

Motivation

By adding OpenSSL as a provider for Ursa we will not only get access to OpenSSL primitives but we can also support Chinese SM crypto from the GmSSL project as well as the Russian GOST cryptography.

Guide-level explanation

Explain the proposal as if it was already included in Ursa and you were teaching it to another Ursa programmer. That generally means:

• Will add Chinese GM/T cryptographic standards or GCCS for short.
• Support SM2(elliptic curve cryptographic), SM3(hash function with 256-bit digest length), SM4, SM9(Signature), ZUC

Reference-level explanation

This is the technical portion of the RFC. Explain the design in sufficient detail that:

• Its interaction with other features is clear. There is already implementations(wrapper) in difference languages, like golang, java, etc. at https://github.com/guanzhi/GmSSL. Ursa can use the implementation if the current implementation support or re-write in Rust.  
• It is reasonably clear how the feature would be implemented. The standards is at http://www.gmbz.org.cn/main/bzlb.html & http://gmssl.org/docs/standards.html, existing implementation is at https://github.com/guanzhi/GmSSL 

The section should return to the examples given in the previous section, and explain more fully how the detailed proposal makes those examples work.

Drawbacks

Why should we not do this?

Rationale and alternatives

• Why is this design the best in the space of possible designs?
• What other designs have been considered and what is the rationale for not choosing them?
• What is the impact of not doing this?
• For incorporating new protocol implementations what other implementations exist and why were they not selected?
• For new protocols, what related protocols exist and why do the not satisfy requirements?

Prior art

Discuss prior art, both the good and the bad, in relation to this proposal. A few examples of what this can include are:

• For other teams: What lessons can we learn from what other communities have done here?
• Papers: Are there any published papers or great posts that discuss this? If you have some relevant papers to refer to, this can serve as a more detailed theoretical background.

This section is intended to encourage you as an author to think about the lessons from other distributed ledgers or cryptographic libraries and provide readers of your RFC with a fuller picture.

Unresolved questions

• What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the RFC process before this gets merged?
• What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the implementation of this feature before stabilization?
• What related issues do you consider out of scope for this RFC that could be addressed in the future independently of the solution that comes out of this RFC?

Changelog

• [10 Jan 2019] - v2 - a one-line summary of the changes in this version.