RE: New Liaison Statement, "Liaison to IETF on the resolution of DR320"

[Ryan Hurst <Ryan.Hurst@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All of these statements are true.

Words fail me is as fine a response to that as any...

________________________________________
From: owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx [owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman [paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 3:25 PM
To: Russ Housley; ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: New Liaison Statement, "Liaison to IETF on the resolution   of  DR320"

The ITU statement says the following:

>>One of the participants in the directory meeting stated that
>>Certification Authorities are being deployed with names not
>>acquired from naming authorities but with names arbitrarily chosen
>>assuming that no other CA is or will be operating under that name.

That is, of course, true. There is no central repository for CA names
because there is no central authority for CAs.

>>That participant further stated that the IETF provides no
>>guidelines on ensuring that the names of CAs are unambiguous.

That is true.

>>The directory group requests the IETF PKIX group to comment on this
>>statement.

Should we make a consensus call on "that is true"?

>>If the statement is correct, we ask the IETF to consider putting a
>>mechanism in place to prevent conflict, e.g. a list of existing CA
>>names that deployers of new CAs could check for naming conflicts.

Words fail me.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium