On Sat, 16 Sep 2023 at 02:29, Randy Bush <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ah, ok. For both RSC and RTA distinct properties are listed such as > > "applicable in long run", "usable", "complex code"; if no comparison is > > intended I'd just remove the two paragraphs about RTA & RSC. > > we seem to be at cross-purposes here. the point was not comparison at > all. never has been. the point is two illustrations of signing.
Yes, indeed both RTA and RSC can be used to sign arbitrary digital objects through reference of their respective SHA256 message digest. But that applies to any and all digital objects. :) Given that the Geofeed specification includes a build-for-purpose methodology (which has running code), are references to other illustrations of signing maybe somewhat of distraction? The current draft outlines in a good and detailed way how to authenticate a signed Geofeed file; on the other hand, the references to RSC or RTA leave a lot up in the air what exactly the workflow could/should be in context of Geofeed files. I think the Geofeed authenticator specification is superior to RTA and RSC, for the purpose of signing Geofeed files. Kind regards, Job
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
