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

["Kemp, David P." <DPKemp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree that we shouldn't change 3280bis, particularly since
it is recycling as a Proposed Standard.  The next I-D series
leading to Draft Standard is plenty of time to make
this change.

At that time, I'd suggest retaining upper bounds as
informational with accompanying text stating that consumers
SHOULD accept data objects of unspecified size and that
producers MAY conform to the informational upper bounds
for legacy interoperability.

Dave


-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 12:01 AM
To: Steven Legg
Cc: Kemp, David P.; ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: New Liaison Statement, "Liaison to IETF on the removal of
upper bound in X.509"


I personally don't know that these upper bounds have become
a real issue since WG last call on 3280bis.

If they had, I'd expect a whole bunch of people to have said
so. They didn't, or I missed it.

So I think that we shouldn't change 3280bis, but would have
no problem with someone writing up an I-D that was a delta
on 3280bis that removed or reset those bounds. I reckon we'd
get that done in less than a year...maybe.

S.