Re: [stir] Review of: draft-ietf-stir-rfc4474bis-10

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

On 8/19/16 11:55 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 8/19/2016 8:49 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>> What this means is that any *prioritization* of these needs to be a
>> decision made by the validator (perhaps differently for different
>> validators in the same call), and not by the signers.
>
>
> Paul,
>
> As you have phrased it, this seems likely to produce non-interoperability.
>
> Some -- and maybe all -- of the details concerning the basic mechanics
> and semantics of multiple signatures need to be specified for consonant
> behavior between signers and validators.  Otherwise, the signer won't
> know how the validator will interpret the signatures.  And the validator
> won't know what the signer(s) meant.
>
> (This is, of course, separate from any policies the receiving side might
> choose to have for the /use/ of the results of that interpretation.)

The latter is what I was talking about.

One validator may trust a particular signer, while another has that 
signer on a blacklist. I think this is unavoidable, and in fact can be 
considered a *feature*.

	Thanks,
	Paul