These comments were addressed in the -02 draft.  Replies to individual comments 
are inline below.

> From: jose [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Schaad
> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 8:56 PM
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: [jose] Last Call review for the thumbprint draft
>
> 1.  Please review the email from James Manger on 4/14/14.  It is not clear to 
> me that all of the issues he raised were addressed as there was no
> response to the message.   Particularly the questions of uniqueness for
> black listing of keys.

A detailed reply to all of James' comments was sent.  Security considerations 
text about the conditions that must be satisfied to achieve uniqueness of 
thumbprint values was added.

> 2.  There seems to be consensus to not define the new header parameter for 
> the time being.

They were removed, per working group input.

> 3.  There does not seem to be consensus at this time for what the method of 
> serialization should be at this time.  The current method is deemed overly 
> complicated by a number of people, but nobody has proposed a method that 
> people can accept as being future proof in the event that a key defines a
> structured field for a key parameter.

As previously discussed, it's fully expected that most implementations will 
actually just have fixed templates for the key types they use, so no sorting or 
other complicated steps will be involved.  Lest you blanch at the idea of 
having type-specific code for computing thumbprints, it's certainly the case 
that any code *using* keys will be type-specific, so it's not onerous to also 
use type-specific code to also compute key thumbprints.

Nat and I feel that the complication arguments don't stack up well compared to 
the benefit of having a general description of how to compute a thumbprint that 
works for any key type.  Other's opinions, may of course, differ. ;-)

> A new draft can easily address the first two issues.  I am not sure what 
> procedure to follow to address the last one.
>
> Jim

                                Thanks again,
                                -- Mike & Nat

_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose

Reply via email to