On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 23/01/15 17:57, Richard Barnes wrote: > >> > > >> > 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. > > Yeah well, it's just a different fixed template so it's > not "doing" ASN.1 at all really, or only about as much > as PKCS#1 requires, which is almost nothing. And SPKI > formatted export of public keys is supported directly > in lots of crypto libraries, incl. WebCrypto so it's > probably even less lines of code if the key was already > imported/generated. And it is the same as some other > protocols use, providing interop, which is also the > whole point of this and other WGs I'd guess (...dude:-) > Yes, you could quasi-templatize it. You would still have to manually adjust length fields and munge byte strings together. Eww. Given the amount of DANE deployment, it's not a huge priority for me. DANE could also meet us half-way here by defining a new binding type should there be a need. --Richard > > S. >
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
