On Aug 4, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Paul C. Bryan wrote: > On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 09:03 -0400, Sean Turner wrote: >> >> I just want to make sure that we agree now that a digital signature is a >> hash followed by a signature algorithm (e.g., RSA with SHA-256). I've >> seen a couple of drafts that tried to say an HMAC (e.g., HMAC-SHA256) >> was a digital signature; one called it a symmetric key based digital >> signature algorithm (note this phrase didn't get through the IESG). >> > > I don't agree.
You don't agree with his definition? Where do you see HMACs defined as "digital signatures"? > I believe we should be able to use this useful plumbing to ensure > integrity/authenticity without having to rely exclusively on public key > cryptography. That is a separate issue. Are you asking that a fifth item be added to the charter, to define HMAC'd content? --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ woes mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes
