Re: HTTP Signatures specification updated

On 02/08/2014 12:29 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote:
>> Dates don't suffice, true... but what about ISO 8601 datetimes that
>> have nanosecond precision?
> 
> I wouldn't go there because it could be (by some people) called a
> "kludge" and become a hurdle in a standardization process.

Hmm, I'd like to hear the argument of why they're a kludge. Many nonce
systems utilize an incrementing counter, I don't see why this mechanism
would be any different.

> Anyway, it is actually a bit nice to have a separate
> transaction/message ID which for example could be strictly
> sequential.  The syntax should preferably be limited to Base64.

I don't see how a sequentially incrementing transaction / message ID
would be different from a nano-second precise datetime value.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: The Worlds First Web Payments Workshop
http://www.w3.org/2013/10/payments/

Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2014 01:15:28 UTC