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

["Joseph Galbraith" <galb-list%vandyke.com@localhost>]

From: "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.

This sound good to me.

- Joseph