-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 23/01/15 17:28, ⌘ Matt Miller wrote: > I agree with Richard that the hash input looks needlessly complex. Well that's one dimension and if the wg consider it's not important to produce something one can compare with hashed public keys from other protocols that's fine and I'd agree with Richard/you. But, why give up the ability to compare thumbprints with DANE etc? I think it's at least arguable that that'd be worth the code to produce a hashed SPKI and better than either aiming for the simplest possible code, or for the current hash input from the draft. S. PS: Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that the wg should produce ni URIs, but that the hash input be the same as that and DANE etc. In the process of writing 6920 I did take a look around and SPKI was the most commonly used hash input I found then and I suspect still is. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUwocPAAoJEC88hzaAX42iQWoH/3hDWZiCyGpCQGCp9gGd7H2/ i4tWtaW5fex9ELKL3gEN7UjUAN6u0uJMyAobvGbD+EkVoRFndi5dmUjrwR7HJgXX JpNiBkZf97hVJ865C4sS3yHxlVtUK/c3/Dyusw32u9VgbcEo8w+HT1R0kqreEY3s Gy/oeGC1vzFgRngCe5Zv2GRacROCVe/fYp8ogPYUBoN18bBZHROb/Av5wcr/V5WR 9QEnY/nrehFdBp9euRkWOqx3l2fMGj628NgTfQRm+ZX4a3pyNfYnCxiJ10oHdqYt WyGxrAf8RALyektd7KviFbXLVWr4vl7KWU3WvZhfF92Iovf5VN8b3yp7xuhc6OQ= =GbJ+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
