Re: Software for PKI

[Stephen Kent <kent@xxxxxxx>]

At 1:09 AM +0100 11/14/01, Michael Ströder wrote:
> Stephen Kent wrote:
> >  This WG is not responsible for broken implementations.
>
> I disagree. If a standard is very complicated and features are most
> times optional it's difficult too implement it correctly and
> complete. Therefore the designers of a security standard are IMHO
> indeed somewhat responsible for broken implementations.
>
> Ciao, Michael.

Michale,

You are right that the more complex a standard becomes, the harder it 
is to implement, and thus the more likely to be broken. But, what 
constitutes a necessary level of complexity, to accommodate a range 
of legitimate "requirements" vs. what is "excessive complexity" is a 
matter of judgement.

Steve