I’ve been watching this thread, on and off, for months, with the intent of not commenting.
I admit to finding it a bit fascinating that this issue, which more or less everyone seem to agree is, well, marginal and has simple solutions has soaked up more than 100 replies over last five months. That’s a significant fraction of the working group activity during that time. I shouldn’t say this but I will: This is bike shedding. That said, I mean absolutely no disrespect to the authors. I happen to agree with the draft (i.e. I would prefer disallowing key tag collisions in the future), but that’s beside the point. Philip Homburg wrote: > In my opinion this is a quality of implementation issue. We should > not design a multi-signer protocol that has collision even if there is > no document that requires it. > > You are right that it requires extra effort. But it has also > benefits. For example testing software if all code paths properly handle > keys with key tag collisions is also unpleasant. This is my view too. It aligns with the old mantra of “be conservative with what you send and liberal with what you accept”. Johan
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
