-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 08/06/2011 07:30 PM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> On 8/6/11 7:43 AM, "Leif Johansson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> So in that case I still support having the spec explain (very carefully)
>> how you do "raw keys" - i.e keys with no intrinsic semantics - and then
>> also adding the cryptographers caveat to that.
>
> To be clear, when I was talking about raw keys, I didn't mean keys with no
> intrinsic semantics. I just meant something along the lines of PKCS1; a
> modulus, an exponent, some algorithm info, and that's about it (I'd be ok
> with defining private keys in the same format as well). It would have
> defined semantic, it just wouldn't be tied to an identity.
OK that was more or less what I was trying to say aswell.
>
> A definite goal for me that is NOT met by PKCS1 however, is to *limit* the
> choices and extensibility in certain directions to reduce the overall
> complexity.
>
> Of course, once you've got primitives for sign and encrypt and you've got a
> key format, doing something like PKIX is possible. Perhaps we could sketch
> that out as potential follow-on work in the charter, so we can make progress
> on some of the shorter-term stuff first?
>
indeed
Cheers Leif
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEUEARECAAYFAk4+YfYACgkQ8Jx8FtbMZnflfgCYp2qanBmDLi4O5FTqFvo/u6ar
kgCfQmV6tssu3aXHYbOcKTBPs5RKv6A=
=x4eF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
woes mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes
