Sorry for the slow reply to this one, Neil. It's gotten me thinking a bit
and it took some time to gather my thoughts and attempt to articulate them.
It is true that, as defined in the current -01 draft, there is the
additional step for the RS to check that the proof key matches the hash in
the AT
That was a lot of words Brian. What is the "tl;dr:"? (I read it, but I'm
not sure where you landed given your last sentence)
ᐧ
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 3:16 PM Brian Campbell wrote:
> Sorry for the slow reply to this one, Neil. It's gotten me thinking a bit
> and it took some time to gather my th
The tl;dr is that I believe Neil's suggestion is of sufficient merit to
warrant seriously considering making the change.
That was more words than it needed to be too. But maybe clarifies.
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 4:51 PM Dick Hardt wrote:
> That was a lot of words Brian. What is the "tl;dr:"? (I
