The use case for this comes from the OpenID Contract Exchange specification,
where they want multiple parties to have signed the same plaintext in no
particular order. This occurs in real life, for instance, when both parties
have to sign the same business or real estate contract.
This is being move to an extension, rather than being in the core spec, because
we don't believe it's a predominant use case.
I also understand the value of sign(sign(plaintext)), which is also achievable.
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Hildebrand [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 2:14 PM
To: Mike Jones; Paul Hoffman; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [woes] Preparation for the WOES meeting
On 3/22/11 12:23 PM, "Mike Jones" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Anticipated extensions:
> - multiple signers on the same plaintext
Would you be ok with multiple signers being sign(sign(plaintext)), rather than
plaintext, signature, signature? That allows us to stick with a single signer
in each operation, and not have to worry as much about canonicalization.
--
Joe Hildebrand
_______________________________________________
woes mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes
