RE: Other certs extension

[Stefan Santesson <stefans@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Stephen,

You hinted in our discussions regarding this draft that the problem that this draft addresses originates from some W3C work.
Is this already covered by the use case in the draft, or could you elaborate?


Stefan Santesson
Senior Program Manager
Windows Security, Standards


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ietf-
> pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
> Sent: den 4 april 2008 15:41
> To: pkix
> Subject: Other certs extension
>
>
>
> 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