>>> I agree that the original text allowing multiple signatures supports >>> the case where the components of the primary key of the object (i.e., >>> prefix+ASN) come from different resource holders. I will restore that >>> text. >> >> this is gonna be really simple; no complications at all i am sure. >> >> btw, was this a consensus of the wg? > > The original draft supported multiple signature attributes. During WG > review (WGLC?, don't recall), several people suggested simplifying the > approach by only allowing one signature attribute. Given the route[6] > example, we need multiple signatures modulo the proposed text to clarify > the handling/generation of those signatures.
i.e. it was not wg consensus but you think you should do it anyway? randy _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
