Re: New Liaison Statement,

[Hoyt L Kesterson II <hoytkesterson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The ITU is not in disagreement. Its Study Group Plenary sent the IETF (not just PKIX) a liaison stating that it had rejected DR 320. It believes that the problems described by DR 320 would not exist if the concept of unambiguous naming is followed as described in the standard.

It believes that if such a problem exists, those environments that permit such duplicate naming should address the problem. If the IETF feels that the problem need not be addressed for whatever reason, then the IETF can respond with that position.

I only advise that "words fail me" would not be an understandable response to the folks back in Geneva.

   hoyt

-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Oct 22, 2007 7:16 PM
>To: Denis Pinkas <denis.pinkas@xxxxxxxx>, "ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx" <ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx>
>Cc: Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: 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
>