Re: Comments on draft-ietf-pkix-tac-00.txt

[Stephen Kent <[e-mail]>]

At 12:02 PM +0200 7/1/08, Denis Pinkas wrote:
>Content-Type: text/html
>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by 
>balder-227.proper.com id m61A2c5J025564
>
>Steve,
>
>It looks like the main motivation is to (finally) find an 
>application for the split key and blind signing mechanism.
>:-)
>The crypto security should be not the central point.

I think it's fair to say that these crypto security mechanisms (split 
key signing and blind signatures) offer greater security than what is 
available from relying only on procedural security promises.

>  There is no way proposed in the draft so that a RP can know that 
>the split key and blind signing aspects occurred or not.

True. it is invisible to RPs.

>If the draft goes along, I would see the place for two schemes:
>
>a) a simpler scheme without the split key and blind signing aspects 
>of the design,
>b) a more complex scheme with the split key and blind signing 
>aspects of the design.
>

This I-D is targeted as an informational RFC.  As such it is 
describing a proposed design for TACs, one that meets the 
requirements perceived by the (primary) authors. There is room for a 
second informational RFC describing an alternative design, one that 
does not rely on slit key signing and (internal use of blind 
signatures).

Steve