JWS and JWE specified both. I agree both need to be supported. John B. On 2011-08-05, at 8:43 AM, Leif Johansson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 08/05/2011 02:11 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >> Support for naked keys is useful. >> >> Lack of support for certificates where needed would be unacceptable and >> render the format unsuited for many of the applications we need it for. >> >> Certificates are pretty simple to deal with. The problems that they are used >> to address are not simple. > > I also think you need both. Sometimes you need to use a key for both > signing and TLS for instance. > >> >> Whatever you thought of the 'Trust Router' proposal made at last IETF, it is >> certainly no simpler than the PKI based approach and that is before they >> have put it in operation and found the operational requirements. > > I don't think that proposal is targeted for anything that comes even > remotely close to signed objects. Lets not go there. > > Cheers Leif > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAk475XUACgkQ8Jx8FtbMZndQEwCeNnyVkj0xpDRhvDuSNSH4/Mig > GH8An3R2UeKcGxUzpZhuUG8/Hakfx5z0 > =XbMB > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > woes mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ woes mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes
