[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: New Liaison Statement, "Liaison to IETF on the removal of upper bound in X.509"

To: Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: New Liaison Statement, "Liaison to IETF on the removal of upper bound in X.509"
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:49:46 +0100
Cc: ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200710061323.l96DN5qg032032@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-pkix/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-pkix.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-pkix-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <7.1.0.9.2.20071005094401.0801cb08@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <200710061323.l96DN5qg032032@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)




Russ Housley wrote:

Personally, I missed the subtle change from normative to informative. Isuspect many others did too. If the PKIX WG to make them informativetoo, then it will have to be done *right now*.


I see no reason to make such a change at this stage.

S.

Follow-Ups:
- RE: New Liaison Statement, "Liaison to IETF on the removal of upper bound in X.509"
  - From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip

References:
- Re: New Liaison Statement, "Liaison to IETF on the removal of upper bound in X.509"
  - From: Russ Housley

Prev by Date: negeordr
Next by Date: RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility
Previous by thread: Re: New Liaison Statement, "Liaison to IETF on the removal of upper bound in X.509"
Next by thread: RE: New Liaison Statement, "Liaison to IETF on the removal of upper bound in X.509"
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread