-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 1/23/15 10:57 AM, Richard Barnes wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Stephen Farrell > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > > > > 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. > > >> Dude, seriously. The whole point of this WG is to not do ASN.1. >
One could make an argument that the JWK thumbprint hash input be defined in a manner that's not in terms of ASN.1 but would be compatible [1]. But I am not making that argument, because it's way more work than I'm willing to do, with little payoff for the things I work on. - -- - - m&m Matt Miller < [email protected] > Cisco Systems, Inc. [1] http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/58395759.jpg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUwo1BAAoJEDWi+S0W7cO1EFYH/0mI4W3W5YduIxF8BiDwpGB/ v5N0j/88Ed8uAUVHbcI/hqU0HX/S2ytx2ORnU1yw7hKcjHyfrFbjO0YJxz6QkshI E7zvoqWoUL9C0YYko9m51UsUJkK0C5OS//q1AX9ilt51C9NBNkLUCWK03Cv9FtPG EcVzE9H0Ye9lvnC8FyQpdKNO9Z7bdtUr9oV1r7INTpQjZX4zvLci6lIrRmniJAKa rlgJJoTNn+txwnVIdmLmXn78P5fJPYgIcFAuciV0s0rlCx/UFNeyr9Yd7J206Vgv kCsOO5aiD3yBsfzkgqCMYD/v9C+QrfDp9RKeVGJ9EAfmQmHGx5s2p7pNyZ3rYAM= =iHwT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
