|
Steve, Would the following do? A relying party uses the trust anchor and associated
information to verify signature on the first certificate in a certification
path. If there are no certificates (i.e., the trusted anchor has directly
signed an object), the relying party uses the trust anchor and associated
information to verify signature on the signed object. From:
owner-ietf-trust-anchor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-ietf-trust-anchor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stephen Kent Sean, Some more comments on the charter text: A trust anchor is a public key and
associated data used by a relying party to begin the process of validating a
signature on a signed object. At least in the X.509 context, we often
end to use the term "verify" for signatures, and validate for certs,
although we are not absolutely consistent in this usage. RFC 2828
discusses this in the section entitled "validate vs. verify" and I
suggest we adopt the suggested usage guidelines from there. "begin" may still be
problematic, e.g., because one might argue that the beginning of the signature
validation process is path discovery. Unfirtunately I don't have a good
alternative suggestion right now. Associated data is used to define the
scope of the use of the trust anchor for validating signatures. For example,
associated data might limit the types of identifiers in certificates that a
public key is used to validate, or the types of objects the signatures of which
can be verified using a public key. The suggested rewording adheres to the
validate vs. verify model in 2828, avoids recursive use of the term TA in its
own definition, and extends the example to encompass non-cert signed data. The scope section seems confusing to me: - Supporting a single trust anchor
administrator, such as in a typical where those trust anchors can be
either local or "foreign" We have not defined "local" or
"foreign" so it's hard to understand the importance of the
distinction being drawn here.
users Why do we believe it is common for a home
user to need multiple TA administrators? - Supporting devices with limited or no
user interface that may or may not have connectivity to the Internet a simple typo fix, but if a deliverable is a TA management protocol, then why do we worry about
devices that have no Internet connectivity? Steve |