Re: TSP. Version 10, Removal of SIA Extension

[Denis Pinkas <Denis.Pinkas@xxxxxxxx>]

Peter,

> The following two mails had been addressed to the editor of the
> time stamping draft. This doesn't mean that other couldn't comment.
> 
> And it would be nice to read an answer from the editor,

An answer has been given to Michael on Mon, 23 Oct 2000 18:35:43 +0200 and
is copied at the end of this message by ourself.

> IMHO after some reasonable time no answer can be interpreted as
> "I don't care, you are talking non-sense."

Keep such interpretations out, ... as well as your flames.

Denis

> From: Michael Zolotarev <mzolotarev@baltimore.com>
> To: Peter Sylvester <Peter.Sylvester@edelweb.fr>, Denis.Pinkas@bull.net
> Cc: ietf-pkix@imc.org
> Subject: RE: TSP. Version 10, Removal of SIA Extension
> Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:48:57 +1000
> 
> I second the proposal.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter Sylvester [mailto:Peter.Sylvester@EdelWeb.fr]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 24 October 2000 3:10
> > To: mzolotarev@baltimore.com; Denis.Pinkas@bull.net
> > Cc: ietf-pkix@imc.org
> > Subject: Re: TSP. Version 10, Removal of SIA Extension
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > A TS certificate contains the an access information was a feature in
> > the text, having this removed may not easily allow to get it back
> > in a next round.
> >
> > I would consider to include the complete definition of SIA in the
> > TS text since it is not or not yet defined anywhere else, and
> > maybe mention that it is expected that it will be removed later.
> >
> > In this way the feature is described and stable, and when
> > as soon as part1 gets updated and the TS text gets moved from
> > proposed to draft, one can remove it without having added
> > or removed any functionality.
> >
> > > Michael,
> > >
> > > > Sounds like its time to get SIA back to TSS draft, Denis :)
> > >
> > > "son-of-RFC2459" has not yet passed WG last call, nor IESG
> > last call.
> > > Waiting for it would create a delay that could be estimated
> > to be, at best,
> > > about two months and thus would mean issuing the TSP RFC
> > next year. :-(
> > >
> > > We now need this long-awaited RFC.
> > >
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > Note: I have just posted to the web editor an update
> > (version 11) that
> > > incorporates the changes that have been noticed (plus one,
> > un-noticed in the
> > > ASN1 module !)
> >
> 
> ----- End Included Message -----