Stephen Kent wrote on 03/03/15 17:29: > I worry that accommodating multiple signatures will cause confusion for > RPs. One would need to specify what to do if one sig fails, but other > succeed, > for example.
I think the draft is clear about that, requiring all signatures to be valid. And if we want to follow the RPSS/RFC2725 approach, then multiple signatures are needed. But, it is not entirely clear to me why we need an "o" field and not just multiple "signature:" attributes in cases when signing by several parties is required. Regards, Andrei
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
