> -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Hildebrand [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 10:57 AM > To: Thomas Hardjono; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? was RE: > Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition > > 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.
Hi Joe, Apologies if I miscommunicated -- I think 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. ok, great. > > > 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. :) Agree. Typically IETF WGs do not maintain strict meeting Minutes :( So perhaps the next best thing would be for the Charter to list the second draft (listing the MTI ciphers/algorithms) as a WG deliverable, with a delivery date. /thomas/ _______________________________________________ woes mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes
