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

Re: Upper Bounds for X.509

To: Hoyt L Kesterson II <hoytkesterson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Upper Bounds for X.509
From: Steven Legg <steven.legg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:45:57 +1000
Cc: PKIX <ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <6077526.1192816179346.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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: <6077526.1192816179346.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)



Hoyt,

Hoyt L Kesterson II wrote:

Another option is to keep the bounds as we have them and have the IETF standard mandate the bounds, choosing any values you like.


Then directory deployments would have to choose between being nice
to PKIX applications by imposing PKIX's upper bounds, or being
nice to other LDAP applications by not imposing upper bounds.

Regards,
Steven

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Upper Bounds for X.509
  - From: Hoyt L Kesterson II

References:
- Re: Upper Bounds for X.509
  - From: Hoyt L Kesterson II

Prev by Date: Re: Upper Bounds for X.509
Next by Date: Re: Upper Bounds for X.509
Previous by thread: Re: Upper Bounds for X.509
Next by thread: Re: Upper Bounds for X.509
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread