On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Stephen Farrell <[email protected] > wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On 23/01/15 17:28, ⌘ Matt Miller wrote: > > I agree with Richard that the hash input looks needlessly complex. > > Well that's one dimension and if the wg consider it's not > important to produce something one can compare with hashed > public keys from other protocols that's fine and I'd agree > with Richard/you. > > But, why give up the ability to compare thumbprints with > DANE etc? > > I think it's at least arguable that that'd be worth the > code to produce a hashed SPKI and better than either aiming > for the simplest possible code, or for the current hash > input from the draft. > Dude, seriously. The whole point of this WG is to not do ASN.1. --Richard > > S. > > PS: Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that the wg should > produce ni URIs, but that the hash input be the same as > that and DANE etc. In the process of writing 6920 I did > take a look around and SPKI was the most commonly used > hash input I found then and I suspect still is. > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1 > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUwocPAAoJEC88hzaAX42iQWoH/3hDWZiCyGpCQGCp9gGd7H2/ > i4tWtaW5fex9ELKL3gEN7UjUAN6u0uJMyAobvGbD+EkVoRFndi5dmUjrwR7HJgXX > JpNiBkZf97hVJ865C4sS3yHxlVtUK/c3/Dyusw32u9VgbcEo8w+HT1R0kqreEY3s > Gy/oeGC1vzFgRngCe5Zv2GRacROCVe/fYp8ogPYUBoN18bBZHROb/Av5wcr/V5WR > 9QEnY/nrehFdBp9euRkWOqx3l2fMGj628NgTfQRm+ZX4a3pyNfYnCxiJ10oHdqYt > WyGxrAf8RALyektd7KviFbXLVWr4vl7KWU3WvZhfF92Iovf5VN8b3yp7xuhc6OQ= > =GbJ+ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
