Hi, I don't know if you are aware of these threads:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-smime/archive1/msg02805.html and http://www.vpnc.org/ietf-ipsec/99.ipsec/msg02021.html Both are several well known people in the industry sharing a bit about X9.42, which - at least to me - sounds like you might end up with a working implementation yourself in the world of Sir More (R.I.P.), yet your peers (the other side of the communications line, who have to digest your stuff) VERY probably will not have a working bit of software to match. Sure, that kind of reasoning wouldn't allow starting /anything/ new, but from far away, where I am, it looks like enough 'someones' didn't really mind a buggy standard (for any value of 'someones' and 'buggy' - insert your worldview and paranoia here). Unless the issues with the specification (and test vectors) have been fixed since then - of which I cannot find any evidence, unfortunately - you'll have quite a road ahead of you. Not to put you off, just my EUR 0.02 trying to tell you it might be a goal a wee bitty harder to achieve then you anticipated it'd be for 'persons who know this topic'. ;-) -- Met vriendelijke groeten / Best regards, Ger Hobbelt -------------------------------------------------- web: http://www.hobbelt.com/ http://www.hebbut.net/ mail: [email protected] mobile: +31-6-11 120 978 -------------------------------------------------- ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [email protected] Automated List Manager [email protected]
