Re: Other certs extension

["Denis Pinkas" <denis.pinkas@xxxxxxxx>]

Stepen,

Since you said that "comments on the content are, of course, also much appreciated" ...

The document should explain under which circumstances the Permanent Identifier extension (RFC 4043) 
would fullfil the goal.

The next question would then be: are the additional features provided by the proposal really important and necessary ?
If yes, this should be argumented.

Denis 

>We briefly discussed this draft [1] in Philadelphia where
>there was some support for taking it on as a WG item, as
>well as some concern. I've just posted an update to the
>draft that I hope might mitigate some of the concerns
>expressed.
>
>At the meeting, we agreed to discuss it on the list,
>i.e. to discuss whether or not to make it a PKIX WG item,
>and if so, whether it ought be experimental track or
>whatever.
>
>FWIW, I think it'd be a fine PKIX draft, and reckon
>experimental is right unless its adopted for some
>interesting application, which I don't see happening
>right now.
>
>So - should this be a PKIX draft? And if so, aiming
>at what kind of RFC?
>
>Cheers,
>Stephen.
>
>PS: Comments on the content are, of course, also much
>appreciated. (And its still only 7 pages, incl. cruft:-)
>
>[1] 
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-farrell-pkix-other-certs-02.txt