On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 11:10:16AM -0400, David Shaw wrote:
While I hate to say it, given the number of hours that went into it
thus far, I think I agree. Last call is approaching, and we have no
implementations of it and no experience with it.
This isn't to say that I think we should scrap notary signatures -
just that it might be a good idea to bump them into their own RFC so
as not to delay 2440bis. I don't believe that implementation and
experience can be achieved in time, and I'd rather see them done right
than done in 2440bis.
What is already there is vague and general enough not to interfere with
future implementations and at least gives some guidelines to implementers,
who may come up with interoperable solutions on their own. Please do not
remove the notary signature types from this RFC.
The actual, detailed specification with examples backed up by an open-source
implementation will go into a new RFC; I have no problem with that.
--
Daniel