Re: 3280bis: key usage (13)

[pgut001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Gutmann)]

"David P. Kemp" <dpkemp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>The suggestion at the time was to consider ephemeral signatures (entity
>authentication w/ liveness) to be purpose A, and persistent signatures (data
>origin authentication / integrity with no implication of presence/liveness)
>to be purpose B. That view was roundly rejected by all present, who
>subscribed to Stefan's theory of contagious fuzziness.

Uhh, just for the record, I've always supported this interpretation, it's
simple, straightforward, and easy to understand.  From private discussions in
the past that there are others here who support this as well, but they tend to
fall into the class of PKI app developers/implementors, who have mostly
abandoned this list or use it purely in read-only mode.

Peter.