On 8/9/11 2:43 PM, "Thomas Hardjono" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Its perfectly ok (and necessary for interop) for the implementers to agree > beforehand about which cipher(s) are must implement. I'd phrase this "agree beforehand" as the mandatory-to-implement set of algorithms. I read your original message as saying that you didn't think there should be *any* MTI algorithms. If I misread, then we're on the same page. > Support for multiple > ciphers is a good thing. However, there is no need to call these out within > the JOSE specification. The proposal on the table is for there to be a second draft which contains the MTI algorithms. > Perhaps the chairs can simply do a WG consensus call to ask which > ciphers/algorithms to implement as part of the first WG deliverables. We'd need to write that consensus down in a document so that folks who came along later would know what we decided. Drafts don't *have* to be long and complicated. :) -- Joe Hildebrand _______________________________________________ woes mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes
