[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Way forward - updating RFC 3161



Title: Way forward - updating RFC 3161

Stefan,

 

I also agree with the approach of updating RFC 3161.  Changing the model of RFC 3161 is only going to cause confusion.

 

The implementation architecture concepts used in the earlier proposal are already described in RFC 3628  and so I see no need for further steps on that aspect.

 

Nick

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Santesson [mailto:stefan@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 01 July 2009 02:00
To: ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx
Cc: Denis Pinkas; Pope, Nick
Subject: Way forward - updating RFC 3161

 

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