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

Re: RFC 3280bis and URI schemes without hostname

To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: RFC 3280bis and URI schemes without hostname
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:49:07 -0800
Cc: ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <474FF00E.3080305@xxxxxxxxx>
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: <tslwss04z9g.fsf@xxxxxxx> <474FF00E.3080305@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Stephen's proposed wording works for me. I think it is daffy for a CAto say that a public key identifies a URL that has no hostname, butCAs do daffy things sometimes.


--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

Follow-Ups:
- Re: RFC 3280bis and URI schemes without hostname
  - From: Sam Hartman

References:
- RFC 3280bis and URI schemes without hostname
  - From: Sam Hartman
- Re: RFC 3280bis and URI schemes without hostname
  - From: Stephen Farrell

Prev by Date: Last Call: draft-ietf-pkix-rfc3280bis (Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile) to Proposed Standard
Next by Date: Re: RFC 3280bis and URI schemes without hostname
Previous by thread: Re: RFC 3280bis and URI schemes without hostname
Next by thread: Re: RFC 3280bis and URI schemes without hostname
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread