Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hi Jim,
A couple of further comments on comments below. Other bits deleted.
I totally agree that the bigger issues should be addressed after
the wg is off the ground, and not before (unless Russ insists;-)
Jim Fenton wrote:
Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
5. Does section
Michael Thomas wrote:
Stephen Farrell wrote:
I thought changing the c14n actually was agreed? Changes to
the signature construct would appear to have some support on the
list. Formally of course none of these changes are agreed
since we're not yet a wg.
Sorry -- my decoder ring didn't decod
Dave Crocker wrote:
I would be surprised though if the result for the signature construct
(which may be a bit of a special case here) didn't have the "best"
security option as the MUST-implement, even if it has the legacy
signature construct as a MAY-emit. But we'll see when we get there...
I would be surprised though if the result for the signature construct
(which may be a bit of a special case here) didn't have the "best"
security option as the MUST-implement, even if it has the legacy
signature construct as a MAY-emit. But we'll see when we get there...
Just to be obsessively
Stephen Farrell wrote:
I thought changing the c14n actually was agreed? Changes to
the signature construct would appear to have some support on the
list. Formally of course none of these changes are agreed
since we're not yet a wg.
Sorry -- my decoder ring didn't decode c14n and I thought
it wa
Dave,
Dave Crocker wrote:
Stephen,
The point is that changes to the signing process are always
imcompatible - the best you can do for backwards compatbility
is sign twice or else allow an option to produce a backwards
compatible signature format. But I believe we're likely to end
up with the
Stephen,
The point is that changes to the signing process are always
imcompatible - the best you can do for backwards compatbility
is sign twice or else allow an option to produce a backwards
compatible signature format. But I believe we're likely to end
up with the MUST-implement being the more
Michael,
Michael Thomas wrote:
Stephen Farrell wrote:
First, the current s/w will have to change since we're changing
the signature construct (c14n & maybe the digest thing).
>
When did we agree to this?
I thought changing the c14n actually was agreed? Changes to
the signature construc
Hi Jim,
A couple of further comments on comments below. Other bits deleted.
I totally agree that the bigger issues should be addressed after
the wg is off the ground, and not before (unless Russ insists;-)
Jim Fenton wrote:
Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
5. Does section 5.2.2 cover cases like a ma
