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

Re: K-of-N subjects

I think k-of-n should be a seperate RFC.  I also think it should be
classed as 'may' right now.  Despite its usefulness, we need to
produce something simple and useful soon.


Carl Ellison wrote:
| At 12:47 PM 8/26/97 -0400, Michael C. Richardson wrote:
| >  I think k-of-n is of sufficient interest for CA type applications
| >that I think that justifies it. It ought to be a SHOULD, not a MUST
| >for implementations. I see CRC's (with pre-shared symmetric signing

| This might be a real solution to the problem.  Let's see what the
| list thinks.  Letting K-of-N be a "should" (something we don't bother
| distinguishing yet) and planning for light and heavy weight tuple
| reducing engines allows us to have our cake and eat it too if/when
| we pair the small, dumb card processors with a trusted device on
| the net.  It certainly makes smartcard life easier...unless there
| is a problem finding that trusted, networked device which has a
| symmetric key in its memory -- for generating the CRC for the card.

"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."