Re: Last Call for Comments on Crypto-Conditions

There is also a bunch of documents comparing various techniques. But I agree, it is crucial not to present another proposal with blank security and privacy. If you need help I can take a shot at it
Have a great day
M

--
Security Architect @ Blockstream 

mp@blockstream.com

+491703311307 (Germany)
+14159608938 (U.S)
Signal, Wickr (martap). 

Sent from a mobile device, please excuse typos.

> On Dec 9, 2016, at 5:27 AM, David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> These need to be expanded a bit, or at least change "draft" to "version"
> 
> <Screen shot 2016-12-08 at 11.22.03 PM.png>
> ​
> The Security Considerations could easily punt to a good reference comparing and contrasting the various crypto-techniques, such as pointing people to section 8 of https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sury-dnskey-ed25519-01.html before stating "this section will be expanded in a later version."
> 
> 
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com> wrote:
> 
> > If anyone has breaking functional changes they wish to suggest please make
> > these on this list or via the Github issue list before 16 December otherwise
> > they will only be considered for the next major version of the
> > specification.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Adrian
> >
> > [1]
> > https://github.com/interledger/rfcs/blob/master/0002-crypto-conditions/0002-crypto-conditions.md
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> "Teaching radical novelties is our main safeguard against dictatorships" -- Edsger W. Dijkstra