[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: No, was Re: QC biometrics needs re-engineering NOW!

To: "ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx" <ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx>, "'Stefan Santesson'" <stefan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: No, was Re: QC biometrics needs re-engineering NOW!
From: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 16:28:38 +0100
Cc: Tony Bartoletti <azb@xxxxxxxx>, "'Magnus Nystrom'" <magnus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Stefan,

>No real problems with interoperability with the current solution has ben presented

I do not agree with your conclusion regarding interoperability.
Neither did Tony B regarding the hash-bio solution.  Try to build a system and you will see...

Absolutely nothing has been presented by anybody giving any clues on how to achieve interoperability.

>This is not a complete biometric solution.

No, I think that it is so inferior that it should be left out from the draft.

Don't worry, I will soon write a QC addendum that supports both interoperability,
privacy, additional biometric types, and does not require any new protocols.  It
will be developed together with the leading biometrics companies.

Anders

Prev by Date: Re: No, was Re: QC biometrics needs re-engineering NOW!
Next by Date: Re: Consensus Text for key usage?
Previous by thread: Re: No, was Re: QC biometrics needs re-engineering NOW!
Next by thread: cert == crl
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread