RE: [secdir] Please review draft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification's use of certificates

["Erik Andersen" <era@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I do not believe this is a question about a global directory or not.

I have the feeling that the term "X.500 theologists" is meant as a
disparaging term.

What about changing the terminology and replace the terms "X.500
theologists" and "pragmatists" with those wanting a clean design and those
that do not care.

During a long life working with IBM customers, I have too often seen hopeful
youngsters developing so-called pragmatic solutions that resulted in bad and
non-extensible designs. The result has been that more and more ice pilled up
in front of the project until it came to a grinding stop. So, I get a bad
feeling in my stomach whenever the word pragmatic is mentioned.

Erik Andersen
Andersen's L-Service
Mobile: +45 20 97 14 90
e-mail: era@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.x500standard.com/
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/era/me
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Peter Gutmann
> Sent: 7. januar 2008 06:56
> To: pgut001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; steven.legg@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: capwap-chairs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx; ietf-
> pkix@xxxxxxx; kent@xxxxxxx; pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx; scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> secdir@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [secdir] Please review draft-ietf-capwap-protocol-
> specification's use of certificates
> 
> 
> Steven Legg <steven.legg@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> >One of the modes for accessing a directory is browsing up and down the
> >directory tree.
> 
> And when do people ever do this?  Google, one of the worlds biggest IT
> companies (?), made most of its fortune from the very fact that people
> don't
> do this.  When did Joe Sixpack last use an Internet directory, and when
> did
> they last use a non-directory Internet search engine?
> 
> (I'm guessing the answer is pretty close to "never" for the former, and
> "the
> last time they went online" for the latter).
> 
> >A common name like "Peter Gutmann's Visa Card" is much more informative
> than
> >the common name "1234 5678 9012 3456".
> 
> To whom is it informative?  In what possible context does anyone
> processing a
> credit card payment care in the remotest manner whether card "1234 5678
> 9012
> 3456" belongs to "Peter Gutmann" or "The Jolly Green Giant"?  All they
> care
> about is the card number and "authorised/declined".
> 
> (The very existence of anonymous prepaid credit cards prove that card
> processors don't care in the slightest about "Peter Gutmann's Visa Card":
> there's no name associated with the card at all since it has zero value to
> them).
> 
> How about the following compromise between X.500 theologists and
> pragmatists:
> The pragmatists agree to make all their DNs fully X.500 (well, X.520)
> compliant the moment the global X.500 directory emerges, and in exchange
> the
> X.500 theologists agree not to bother the pragmatists any more until the
> global X.500 directory emerges.
> 
> Peter.