-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On May 30, 2009, at 10:15 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
k: Key type
Much the same as h=, with the added issue that there's only one
possible key type right now, and if there were a need for k= in the
future it could be added in the same RFC that adds support for
anything other than RSA.
Please discuss arguments for and against dropping this.
The argument against dropping it is that we *will* have to put it back
in, eventually to support ECDSA. RSA will eventually be phased out.
There will also be a strong desire to put it back in before there is a
need. Thus, why remove something that we know will be needed, even if
it is not presently needed?
The argument in favor of dropping it is that if we do everything, then
our grandchildren will be fat and lazy. We need to bequeath them a
reason for being. After they solve the world hunger, global warming,
and world peace issues, it would be nice for them to do something easy.
Jon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Universal 2.6.3
Charset: US-ASCII
wj8DBQFKJE8wsTedWZOD3gYRAjhnAJwMMtFXvlGDA0zpDYst/1SyqYr0KACcDKic
dZ/Q1LNP9ZOQPcCTZCm/ybU=
=LEDD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html