On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Joe Hildebrand <[email protected]>wrote:
> Agree. Algorithm agility is a must, but large numbers of supported > algorithms out of the gate are not. Having a small set of algorithms > widely-implemented will increase interoperability drastically, particularly > considering that in some of the target operating environments, we'll need > to > wait for people with adequate cryptographic skills to help. > > I do really like the idea of splitting the MTI specification into a small > separate draft, so that it can be rev'd easily as needed. +1 And that way we can have two profiles (or more) to address different implementation situations. Web Services implementation constraints are frequently asymmetric. There is one portion built on some all-singing/dancing platform like .NET or whatever and that talks to a thin client embedded in Jscript or a mobile device or what-have-you. If we can avoid creating yet another crypto-registry (i.e. re-use the PEM or whatever algorithm registry) then all the spec needs to say is that X is the slot where the algorithm name goes and the MTI doc(s) specify how to get interoperability. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________ woes mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes
