[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: