[rfc-i] draft-iab-rfc-use-of-pdf-01
pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu (Paul Kyzivat) Wed, 24 February 2016 21:37 UTC
From: pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu (Paul Kyzivat)
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 16:37:52 -0500
Subject: [rfc-i] draft-iab-rfc-use-of-pdf-01
In-Reply-To: <8CA0EDCE-A853-4FA2-9AC6-D7C33C0D149A@cisco.com>
References: <643D983A-58E2-49B8-BBD5-874F4572F61A@vigilsec.com>
<40F0BBE7-E264-4D9C-8E7C-5B6BD3DAC3F3@cisco.com>
<8CA0EDCE-A853-4FA2-9AC6-D7C33C0D149A@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <56CE22B0.207@alum.mit.edu>
On 2/24/16 3:57 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote: > The use case we're worried about is someone submitting both a .txt and a .pdf containing a signature to the automated tools. (This comment is a little off topic.) Isn't doing this problematic? Is there any assurance that the two are consistent with one another? ISTM that there should only be one format input, with any others being derived from it. Will this be allowed once all the new xml machinery is deployed? Thanks, Paul
- [rfc-i] draft-iab-rfc-use-of-pdf-01 Russ Housley
- [rfc-i] draft-iab-rfc-use-of-pdf-01 Joe Hildebrand jhildebr
- [rfc-i] draft-iab-rfc-use-of-pdf-01 Russ Housley
- [rfc-i] draft-iab-rfc-use-of-pdf-01 Russ Housley
- [rfc-i] draft-iab-rfc-use-of-pdf-01 HANSEN, TONY L
- [rfc-i] draft-iab-rfc-use-of-pdf-01 Joe Hildebrand jhildebr
- [rfc-i] draft-iab-rfc-use-of-pdf-01 Leonard Rosenthol
- [rfc-i] draft-iab-rfc-use-of-pdf-01 Joe Hildebrand jhildebr
- [rfc-i] draft-iab-rfc-use-of-pdf-01 Paul Kyzivat
- [rfc-i] draft-iab-rfc-use-of-pdf-01 Leonard Rosenthol
- [rfc-i] draft-iab-rfc-use-of-pdf-01 Russ Housley
- [rfc-i] draft-iab-rfc-use-of-pdf-01 HANSEN, TONY L
- [rfc-i] draft-iab-rfc-use-of-pdf-01 Leonard Rosenthol
- [rfc-i] draft-iab-rfc-use-of-pdf-01 Joe Hildebrand jhildebr
- [rfc-i] draft-iab-rfc-use-of-pdf-01 Russ Housley