Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition

[John Bradley <[e-mail]>]

Short term stuff first. 

Boil ocean stage 2. 

Replacing PKIX may be a noble goal,  but is out of scope for phase 1. 

John B. 

Sent from my iPhone

On 2011-08-06, at 1:30 PM, Joe Hildebrand <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 8/6/11 7:43 AM, "Leif Johansson" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> So in that case I still support having the spec explain (very carefully)
>> how you do "raw keys" - i.e keys with no intrinsic semantics - and then
>> also adding the cryptographers caveat to that.
> 
> To be clear, when I was talking about raw keys, I didn't mean keys with no
> intrinsic semantics.  I just meant something along the lines of PKCS1; a
> modulus, an exponent, some algorithm info, and that's about it (I'd be ok
> with defining private keys in the same format as well).  It would have
> defined semantic, it just wouldn't be tied to an identity.
> 
> A definite goal for me that is NOT met by PKCS1 however, is to *limit* the
> choices and extensibility in certain directions to reduce the overall
> complexity.
> 
> Of course, once you've got primitives for sign and encrypt and you've got a
> key format, doing something like PKIX is possible.  Perhaps we could sketch
> that out as potential follow-on work in the charter, so we can make progress
> on some of the shorter-term stuff first?
> 
> -- 
> Joe Hildebrand
> 
> _______________________________________________
> woes mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes