Re: public key (was Re: consensus probe.)

[Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld%east.sun.com@localhost>]

[ wg chair hat off ]

> >   Public key / certificate formats that do not
> >   explicitly specify a signature format identifier
> >   MUST be considered to use the public key / certificate
> >   format identifier as the signature identifier.
> 
> However, doesn't this sound like it can be interpreted as if the signature
> format identifier might be ommited alltogether?! (or is it just me beeing
> dizzy here?).

I'd delete "be considered to", resulting in:

>   Public key / certificate formats that do not explicitly specify a
>   signature format identifier MUST use the public key / certificate
>   format identifier as the signature identifier.

					- Bill