Differences amoung PGP/GPG versions

[warlord at MIT.EDU (Derek Atkins)]

Um, X.509 does not lend itself to signing parties, mostly because
X.509 generally restricts signatures to a strict hierarchy, and
most X.509 implementations only allow for a single signature on
a certificate.

-derek

John Abreau <jabr at blu.org> writes:

> On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, E. Wiliam Horne wrote:
> 
> > Derek,
> >
> > Thanks for your explanation. I'll go to the well one more time, and ask
> > that you/the list broaden the discussion to include X.509 certificate
> > signing and ask the list if the BLU should get involved with that.
> >
> > While I realize the PGP/GPG is a separate system than the X.509 model,
> > I'm trying to find ways to make both interoperate. If that means writing
> > Java to plug into Netscape, or other ways to make PGP/GPG transparent to
> > end users, then that's what I'm after.
> 
> The December meeting is focused on PGP/GPG. I'm not coversant with X.509,
> and I've never heard anyone talk about X.509 signing parties. I doubt we
> could really do the topic justice if we added it to the PGP discussion.
> 
> If someone is interested in giving a separate talk about X.509 at a
> later meeting, I'm open to that. That could certainly include
> interoperability issues.
> 
> -- 
> John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux & Unix
> ICQ#28611923 / AIM abreauj / Email jabr at blu.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://www.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
       Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
       Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board  (SIPB)
       URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/    PP-ASEL-IA     N1NWH
       warlord at MIT.EDU                        PGP key available