RE: asn.1 modules in 3280bis

[Stefan Santesson <stefans@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I would like to have the other editors and WG opinion.
If it is positive, then I assume it's a fairly straightforward process if we get to it.

Lets finish this up so we can ship this document.

Stefan Santesson
Senior Program Manager
Windows Security, Standards


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ietf-
> pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Russ Housley
> Sent: den 29 januari 2007 18:02
> To: Peter Sylvester; pkix
> Subject: Re: asn.1 modules in 3280bis
>
>
> Peter:
>
> RFC 3280 includes two ASN.1 Modules:
>     PKIX1Explicit88, and
>     PKIX1Implicit88.
>
> I have no objection to using three ASN.1 Modules in 3280bis:
>     PKIX1Explicit88,
>     PKIX1Implicit88, and
>     PKIX1Extensions.
>
> I'm sure that you could help the authors figure out which type
> definitions to move to the third module.
>
> Russ
>
>
> At 09:43 AM 1/29/2007, Peter Sylvester wrote:
>
> >It may be a bit late but I would like to propose a small change RFC
> 3280 bis.
> >
> >The text defines (as well as 3280) two ASN.1 modules. The definitions
> contain
> >two types of information:
> >
> >- rewrites from X.509 etc
> >- new definitions like the id-pkix arc and extensions
> >
> >If one wants to use the new definitions in other specifications here
> is
> >the problem of ASN.1 compatibility when imported into other
> >modules/
> >I propose to add two modules:
> >
> >PKIXUsefulDefinitions which regroups definitions in such a way that
> >they can be imported elsewhere.
> >the syntax definitions for the private extensions. The actual
> >
> >PKIXExtensions in current syntax to use the
> >EXTENSION CLASS to bind the extensions the OIDs.
> >
> >If this cannot be included into the 3280bis I propose a small RFC
> >defining these modules.
> >
> >Peter