Re: Notary signatures

[Jon Callas <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 4/25/2002 5:05 PM, "David Shaw" <dshaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> As I see it, all signatures can have a timestamp, so really any of
> them is usable for a timestamp signature.  I'm not sure how 0x40
> differs here, as it doesn't seem clear what 0x40 is a signature on.
> If it is on binary data, then we have a type for that already.  If it
> is on textual data, we have a type for that as well.  We even have a
> type for a standalone signature-on-nothing "token".
> 
> A notary signature does not have to be class 0x40, but since 0x40 was
> intended for this in the past, and (as far as I can see) does not
> serve a purpose that other signature types cannot already provide, why
> not make it 0x40?

0x40 was added in as a timestamp signature after the unused types were all
removed. As I remember, Lutz Donnerhacke was going to be using it, and I
think other people are as well.

I'm not going to overload timestamps with notary signatures. That's a bad
idea. If we decide to put notary signatures back in, they'll get a new
number. RFC 1991 was only ever informational, and is dead as far as we're
concerned. (And no one ever implemented that.) 0x50 is a fine number.

So -- what are you going to do with them? Why do you need it? I'd like to
move towards getting a new RFC soon, so explain what you want, and lets get
a rough consensus of the group that it's a good idea. If we get that, I'll
put it in.

    Jon