Re: TSP. Version 10, Removal of SIA Extension

[Peter Sylvester <Peter.Sylvester@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> 
> 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.

I have read Michael's message and my question was a reaction on your answer.

You have accepted done a slight modification of a well accepted feature
(AIA->SIA) and then you have realized that this blocks the text, as a simple
remedy you just remove everything. 

I have proposed a way to keep the feature inside the current text
that does not block the tsp draft. This was seconded by Michael,
and I wondered why there was no reaction.

> 
> > 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.

You might consider to keep out your projections out of the discussion.
There is no flame, and it is not me who interpretes.

Peter

> 
> 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 -----
>