Re: V3 secret keys

[David Shaw <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 12:54:01AM -0800, Jon Callas wrote:
> 
> On 16 Feb 2006, at 10:48 AM, David Shaw wrote:
> 
> >
> >If the language in 1991 is suitable, perhaps we could just point to
> >1991.  Is it legal to refer in this way to a document that we're
> >obsoleting in 2440bis?
> 
> I don't think so. 1991 was never standards track. I don't want to re- 
> open the old dead horse of whether you can obsolete something that  
> was never standards track. It's too much like Alice's comment on more  
> tea.
> 
> Furthermore, it would committing a sin that drives me up the wall, of  
> requiring someone to go back N documents. If the language in 1991 is  
> close, then why not edit it into something suitable? I think that's  
> much better than leaving pointers all over the place for people who  
> read it a decade from now to have to deal with.

It may be moot - taking a look at 1991 now, it doesn't seem to say
anything about storing V3 secret keys at all!

David