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

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




At 1:52 PM +0200 10/22/07, Denis Pinkas wrote:
I agree with what you say. However", Words fail me" may have multiple interpretations. We are going to invent a mechanism to prevent conflict, e.g. a list of existing CA
names that deployers of new CAs could check for naming conflicts.

When you say "We", if you mean the IETF, then, yes, you have indeed gotten the wrong sense of my statement.

The implications are that DR 320 has been rejected by the directory group on a wrong basis.

It would be unwise for the PKIX WG to get embroiled in the ITU's disagreements here. We should wait for a clear statement from them about what they believe is their response to the issue, then we can work with that.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium