Göran Selander <[email protected]> wrote: > The proposal is to change TBSCertificate of C509, i.e. what is being > signed, both in case of compressed X.509 and native. So existing C509 > implementations need to change and existing C509 certificates are not > compliant. I don’t know to what extent this is already deployed, Derek > is one. And I can’t say how important one-pass verification is in this > case. Which is why we asked the WG for more input.
okay, so it's still an I-D, and so Derek might have to lump it :-)
However, I'm not convinced that he use case is Native C509, and not
compressed, which would not change after compression/decompression.
mcr> I'd still like better terms than C509 and Natively signed C509.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
