[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suppose Sig 2 decides that the certificate is no longer valid.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        |