Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 4, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Paul C. Bryan wrote:

> On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 09:03 -0400, Sean Turner wrote:
>> 
>> I just want to make sure that we agree now that a digital signature is a 
>> hash followed by a signature algorithm (e.g., RSA with SHA-256).  I've 
>> seen a couple of drafts that tried to say an HMAC (e.g., HMAC-SHA256) 
>> was a digital signature; one called it a symmetric key based digital 
>> signature algorithm (note this phrase didn't get through the IESG).
>> 
> 
> I don't agree.

You don't agree with his definition? Where do you see HMACs defined as "digital signatures"?

> I believe we should be able to use this useful plumbing to ensure integrity/authenticity without having to rely exclusively on public key cryptography.

That is a separate issue. Are you asking that a fifth item be added to the charter, to define HMAC'd content?

--Paul Hoffman