On 2015-03-04 1:32, Andrei Robachevsky wrote: > 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.
Indeed, that is why we're dropping it. The o= field was suggested a long time ago to make interdependent signatures. When thinking about the implementability of it, it became clear that it has a *lot* of added complexity, with not much benefit, if you compare to multiple, independent signatures (which only make real sense for route objects, I think). The draft already allows multiple signatures, therefore dropping the o= field is the simplest and most forward looking step. Cheers, Robert _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
