[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Any more comments on the whois++ SPKI proposalette?



Too fast on the send button.  I meant to say -- it seemed like there
were a number of people, myself included, who wanted to see the
requirements doc first. This was also stated explicitly at the WG
meeting in LA.

>----------
>From: 	Paul Leach
>Sent: 	Saturday, April 20, 1996 7:17 PM
>To: 	spki@c2.org; 'Simon Spero'
>Subject: 	RE: Any more comments on the whois++ SPKI proposalette?
>
>Yes -- I thought it was pretty clear that a requirements doc was needed
>before writing up "solutions".
>
>----------
>From: 	Simon Spero[SMTP:ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu]
>Sent: 	Wednesday, April 17, 1996 12:36 PM
>To: 	spki@c2.org
>Subject: 	Any more comments on the whois++ SPKI proposalette?
>
>
>Does anyone have anything to say about using whois++ for SPKI, with the
>
>extra fields we discussed yesterday? Is it worth trying to push on
>this; If 
>so, I'll write it up in ID format. 
>
>Simon
>p.s.
>  The 'simplest' format for storing public keys seems to depend heavily
>
>on what toolkit you use; DER encoded PKCS-1 values seem to be best for 
>BSAFE, but separately encoded fields seem to be better for RSAREF. Are
>we 
>better off avoid anything to do with DER at the expense of making our 
>format a little bit more complicated? 
>
>
>---
>They say in  online country             So which side are you on boys
>There is no middle way                  Which side are you on
>You'll either be a Usenet man           Which side are you on boys
>Or a thug for the CDA                   Which side are you on?
>  National Union of Computer Operatives; Hackers, local 37   APL-CPIO
>
>
>

Follow-Ups: