Additional test vectors for the RSA implicit rejection

[tomato42]

More vectors and align them with the draft-irtf-cfrg-rsa-guidance

---

This change is 

[t184256]

unit_tests/test_tlslite_utils_rsakey.py line 3204 at r6 (raw file):

        plaintext = a2b_hex(remove_whitespace("""
732f025d1adea74649b4

using multiline literals seems unnecessary for such short values

[t184256]

unit_tests/test_tlslite_utils_rsakey.py line 3087 at r6 (raw file):

        # 9 byte long value
        ciphertext = a2b_hex(remove_whitespace("""
00001ec97ac981dfd9dcc7a7389fdfa9d361141dac80c23a060410d472c16094

I don't see this one in https://github.com/tomato42/marvin-ietf/blob/d911d9a31654aa619a57bb0a970a2185e763b29b/draft-irtf-cfrg-rsa-guidance.xml, is that OK? same for several more; they're not new in this PR

[t184256]

unit_tests/test_tlslite_utils_rsakey.py line 1822 at r6 (raw file):

        dec = self.priv_key._raw_private_key_op_bytes(ciphertext)
        self.assertEqual(dec[0:2], b'\x00\x02')
        self.assertTrue(all(i != 0 for i in dec[2:-1]))

nit: all(i != 0 for i in N) looks overly verbose to me given it could be an all(N), but that's a matter of preference

[t184256]

Reviewed all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 0 of 2 files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @tomato42)

[tomato42]

Reviewable status: 0 of 2 files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @t184256)

---

unit_tests/test_tlslite_utils_rsakey.py line 1822 at r6 (raw file):

Previously, t184256 (Alexander Sosedkin) wrote…

nit: all(i != 0 for i in N) looks overly verbose to me given it could be an all(N), but that's a matter of preference

while yes, I wanted it to be understandable to people with just cursory understanding of Python

---

unit_tests/test_tlslite_utils_rsakey.py line 3087 at r6 (raw file):

Previously, t184256 (Alexander Sosedkin) wrote…

I don't see this one in https://github.com/tomato42/marvin-ietf/blob/d911d9a31654aa619a57bb0a970a2185e763b29b/draft-irtf-cfrg-rsa-guidance.xml, is that OK? same for several more; they're not new in this PR

yes, it's ok, I don't think it's strictly necessary or brings much above a single null byte at the beginning; for the I-D I've selected a subset that should catch most of issues

---

unit_tests/test_tlslite_utils_rsakey.py line 3204 at r6 (raw file):

Previously, t184256 (Alexander Sosedkin) wrote…

using multiline literals seems unnecessary for such short values

while true, I wanted them to be easily diffable with the xml source of the I-D and then later, the RFC

[t184256]

Reviewable status: 0 of 2 files reviewed, all discussions resolved