Re: Way forward - updating RFC 3161

[Adriano Santoni <adriano.santoni@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I fully agree with Stefan.

Adriano


Stefan Santesson ha scritto:
> We need to resolve how to update RFC 3161 with respect to allowing 
> support of RFC 5035 (ESSV2)
> One particular reason is because ETSI ESI is dependent on progression 
> of this issue in PKIX.
>
> I would like to open this issue up for debate and then hopefully 
> conclude this issue, possibly after a straw poll.
>
> My personal opinion, and what I interpret as the general opinion of 
> this working group is that we should reject 
> draft-ietf-pkix-rfc3161bis-01 as basis for updating rfc 3161. This 
> draft intends to obsolete RFC 3161 and introduces major changes to 
> terminology and role description to align RFC 3161 with the 
> informational document RFC 3628.
>
> It is problematic to introduce such major changes to a standard that 
> is widely deployed. It is neither required from a protocol 
> implementation perspective as these changes are not intended to change 
> any bits on the wire. The optional usage of ESSV2 does not motivate a 
> total rewrite of the current standard, but is better handled in an 
> update RFC.
>
> If description of roles and responsibilities that so not change any 
> bits on the wire need to be clarified in relation to RFC 3628 and RFC 
> 3161, then this should be handled either as an update to RFC 3628 or 
> as a separate informational document.
>
> /Stefan