[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Thoughts on the draft
At 01:36 PM 8/29/96 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>To be sure I understand: You are thinking of a multiple-signature cert
>like this:
>
>((Certificate-data)(Sig 1)(Sig 2)(Sig 3)...(Sig n)) where each Sig
>applies only to the (Certificate-data), not any of the other Sigs.
>This seems to build an odd relationship abetween the signers --
>suppose Sig 2 decides that the certificate is no longer valid. What
>does that mean as far as the other signers are concerned?
That's an interesting question.
In general, if you have ((Certificate-data)(Sig 1)(Sig 2)(Sig 3)...(Sig n)),
does the interpretation of the cert depend on the other signatures at all?
If so, I believe we're in PolicyMaker domain. If not, then it looks like a
space-saving abbreviation.
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Carl M. Ellison cme@cybercash.com http://www.clark.net/pub/cme |
|CyberCash, Inc. http://www.cybercash.com/ |
|207 Grindall Street PGP 2.6.2: 61E2DE7FCB9D7984E9C8048BA63221A2 |
|Baltimore MD 21230-4103 T:(410) 727-4288 F:(410)727-4293 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
Follow-Ups: