Subject: Repeated: QC biometric selection/protocol

From: Anders Rundgren <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 13:42:55 +0100

Stefan,

I look forward to consensus but without any comments on this

http://www.imc.org/ietf-pkix/mail-archive/msg03203.html

which is directed to the QC-designers rather than the list, it is very hard
to have an opinion about the current concept for handling biometrics.

I think it was Denis Pinkas who originally suggested the hash-bio and Stephen Farrel
who added the URI part.  Maybe they care to elaborate on this?

Note that several others in this list seem to agree with me that the hash+URI is
equally privacy-depriving as the bio-in-cert solution.  So is the big question really
only a matter of "file-size"?

Anders

---

From: Denis Pinkas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 15:24:40 +0100

Anders,

> who added the URI part.  Maybe they care to elaborate on this?

Your historic is correct. However, I said yesterday: "We should not
re-open that discussion". Thus, I do not want to elaborate more on
this at this time.

Regards,

Denis