[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [regrep] Vote on version 2.03 - ACTION ITEM
Please see
my recent response to Suresh. On the 1st two security related issues
highlighted below, I agree.
However, I
strongly believe that the public vs. private bug (highlighted) below, as well as
the bunch of spelling and grammatical errors that I noted in my original post
the other day should be fixed prior to the release of v2.1. Even if this
means another review/approval cycle.
Joel
-----Original Message----- Joel,
From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM] Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 8:45 AM To: Munter, Joel D Cc: 'Damodaran, Suresh'; 'Oasis Registry TC' Subject: Re: [regrep] Vote on version 2.03 - ACTION ITEM V2.1 is intended to be a bug fix release and not for arbitrary changes to the spec. We have required digital signatures on payloads since the earliest versions of the specs. This was not objected to by anyone in V1.0 or V2.0. Making any changes here would be major and I would advice strongly against it. -- "Munter, Joel D" wrote: My primary argument is, "financial and technological barriers to entry." Certificate acquisition and management are not free and not trivial. From a practical point, I may choose to make some things that I publish, purely public and dsig just simply is not required. I want to be able to choose what I sign. imho Signing entries should be optional. It has been suggested (by others) that the first two might be reconsidered in the V3 timeframe.Joel |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC