Re: [keyassure] publishing the public key

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

On 2/14/11 9:12 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2011, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
>>> Why does TLS service have to send cert/cert chain?
>>
>> Because that is what is required by the TLS standard. We should not be
>> trying to modify the TLS spec in this WG.
>
> I understand, but there IS a relationship here. With DANE, you have an
> alternative to PKIX-TLS. So such a change would affect TLS, but would
> require DANE.

I disagree that us using bare keys for identifying TLS server 
certificates is impossible.

> Similarly, the TLS group could say "we won't add bare
> public key because there is no validation for it" and they'd send me
> back to DANE.

They could say that, but you have not even asked the TLS WG, have you?

> So please don't call bare public key out of scope yet.

Paul, saying that is ridiculous. In the message that preceded the one 
you replied to, I actually supported bare keys as long as proponents can 
propose wording that the WG would support on how they should be included.