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

"Paul C. Bryan" <paul.bryan@forgerock.com> Mon, 08 August 2011 16:02 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.bryan@forgerock.com>
X-Original-To: woes@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: woes@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E713521F86BC for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 09:02:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0wpWW9I4rWpo for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 09:02:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eu1sys200aog120.obsmtp.com (eu1sys200aog120.obsmtp.com [207.126.144.149]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id BBC1221F86A9 for <woes@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 09:02:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pz0-f42.google.com ([209.85.210.42]) (using TLSv1) by eu1sys200aob120.postini.com ([207.126.147.11]) with SMTP ID DSNKTkAIjdl5T1TmMsKFN0fjkljsese0lrbQ@postini.com; Mon, 08 Aug 2011 16:02:29 UTC
Received: by mail-pz0-f42.google.com with SMTP id 37so4075609pzk.15 for <woes@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Aug 2011 09:02:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.142.237.21 with SMTP id k21mr5964136wfh.271.1312819340656; Mon, 08 Aug 2011 09:02:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.177] (S0106001346fbe4af.vf.shawcable.net [174.1.44.35]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 14sm2573957wfl.17.2011.08.08.09.02.19 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 08 Aug 2011 09:02:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul C. Bryan" <paul.bryan@forgerock.com>
To: woes@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <0c100e09-dad3-4cc5-87a2-b42f1f6c834b@default>
References: <0c100e09-dad3-4cc5-87a2-b42f1f6c834b@default>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-csXRWkCdChWLQmyeCmqs"
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 09:02:24 -0700
Message-ID: <1312819344.5484.11.camel@dynamo>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3
Subject: Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition
X-BeenThere: woes@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Web Object Encryption and Signing \(woes\) BOF discussion list" <woes.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/woes>, <mailto:woes-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/woes>
List-Post: <mailto:woes@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:woes-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes>, <mailto:woes-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 16:02:05 -0000

On Mon, 2011-08-08 at 08:36 -0700, Hal Lockhart wrote:

> I would like to explicitly state that I think it is NOT desirable to
> do anything which encourages people to do new implementations of
> crypto operations. The corollary is that the spec should specify
> objects in formats which make them easy to be passed as arguments to
> existing libraries, especially libraries which are likely to be
> present in the target environment.


+1

Paul