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

[John Bradley <[e-mail]>]

JWS and JWE specified both.   I agree both need to be supported.

John B.
On 2011-08-05, at 8:43 AM, Leif Johansson wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 08/05/2011 02:11 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>> Support for naked keys is useful.
>> 
>> Lack of support for certificates where needed would be unacceptable and
>> render the format unsuited for many of the applications we need it for.
>> 
>> Certificates are pretty simple to deal with. The problems that they are used
>> to address are not simple.
> 
> I also think you need both. Sometimes you need to use a key for both
> signing and TLS for instance.
> 
>> 
>> Whatever you thought of the 'Trust Router' proposal made at last IETF, it is
>> certainly no simpler than the PKI based approach and that is before they
>> have put it in operation and found the operational requirements.
> 
> I don't think that proposal is targeted for anything that comes even
> remotely close to signed objects. Lets not go there.
> 
> 	Cheers Leif
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAk475XUACgkQ8Jx8FtbMZndQEwCeNnyVkj0xpDRhvDuSNSH4/Mig
> GH8An3R2UeKcGxUzpZhuUG8/Hakfx5z0
> =XbMB
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> woes mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes