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

Re: yet another <auth> type

To: Pat Farrell <pfarrell@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: yet another <auth> type
From: "Angelos D. Keromytis" <angelos@AURORA.CIS.UPENN.EDU>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 20:35:09 +0000
Cc: Moltar Ramone <jlasser@goucher.edu>, Carl Ellison <cme@cybercash.com>, spki@c2.net
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 21 Feb 1997 19:13:28 EST." <199702220013.QAA04486@netcom4.netcom.com>
Posted-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 20:35:09 +0000
Sender: owner-spki@c2.net

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


In message <199702220013.QAA04486@netcom4.netcom.com>, Pat Farrell writes:
>I see the addition of this type, and others that may or may not be
>useful/valuable/worthwhile as a distraction from the more pressing needs
>of getting SDSI/SPKI through the IETF process, getting sample
>parsers out in circulation, getting sample certs for people to test
>interoperability, etc.

I think i will agree with this. Is the new auth field absolutely
necessary ? If not, we can always put it on the second draft (since
we've already decided there will be a second one after this one goes
through). 
- -Angelos

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBMw5NTL0pBjh2h1kFAQGwYAP7B3+Imw7BQLRxBWGkzDD1MstB2cma0Z+w
pKWU6RhPlVKPthxc+7xuAlda28lhNUCSw/cQG8c/Nid4+5w/FxJrILobrzHBS9oV
/5NK/YtyBrmGpX3C7SAG4QwMVtqnRTW3G+TTikrmjjBEf89xmH31lyiRN8qRwaj7
OgXUuTrDaiU=
=6W0S
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

References:

Re: yet another <auth> type

From: Pat Farrell <pfarrell@netcom.com>

Prev by Date: Re: SDSI parser?
Next by Date: Re: yet another <auth> type
Prev by thread: Re: yet another <auth> type
Next by thread: Re: yet another <auth> type
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread