Re: Other certs extension

[Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Denis,

(Sorry, I'd meant to include something on PI based on your earlier
comments, but I forgot. It'll go into a -03 version if/when that
gets done.)

Denis Pinkas wrote:
> 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.

My earlier response on this was (and still is):

"
- I don't think there's a technical need for a permanent identifier for
  this purpose (as I understand it N-R is the main motivator for 4043)
- I'm not sure that there are any real assigner authorities and
  depending on a new name space might just make the problem at hand
  worse
- I've no idea whether 4043 is widely supported or not (mind you, the
  proposed new extension isn't even implemented so that's less of a
  concern)

However, I do agree that were 4043 used, it could solve the problem
at hand, so even if the new extension does go ahead, the spec should
call that out."

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

Is "important/necessary" a gating factor for an experimental RFC?
In any case, I'd argue that the other certs extension does fulfill
a particular need that crops up sometimes, and is worth specifying
so that if it becomes important, then there's a clear way to do it.

Stephen.


> 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