- From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip <pbaker@verisign.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 08:00:17 -0700
- To: "'David Cross'" <dcross@microsoft.com>, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>, www-xkms@w3.org
I think that what it means is that the authentication blob needs to be an option rather than a requirement. It possibly means we should put in some explanatory stuff. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: David Cross [mailto:dcross@microsoft.com] > Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 1:23 PM > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; www-xkms@w3.org > Subject: RE: More musings, registration > > > I agree that the two scenarios exist. > > Are you suggesting the second case would only contain the signature on > the certificate? Can you extrapolate further on your thoughts? > > > David B. Cross > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:pbaker@verisign.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 10:11 AM > To: www-xkms@w3.org > Subject: More musings, registration > > > > It occurred to me that there are intrinsically two types of XKMS > registration > > 1 Initial registration of a key pair > Alice generates a key pair, registers it, gets back a cert > perhaps. > > 2 Secondary Registration > Alice submits her previously issued certificate to the XKMS > service that supports her ISP's Locate directory. > > > It occurs to me that in the second case the request might > simply depend > on the signature in the certificate. > > Phill >
Received on Monday, 22 July 2002 10:58:55 UTC