Re: X509 ACs - Too late, too little

["Anders Rundgren" <anders.rundgren@xxxxxxxxx>]

Rick,

> With any luck, the base document is XML which can easily be translated
> to HTML and IETF-RFC. :)
 
I don't want to waste too much PKIX-bamdwidth on this issue as I understand
it is rather "sensitive", but the statement above more or less dictates documents
without pictures of any complexity.  I.e. long-term I see some problems with the
IETF-RFC format.  The more complex thing gets, the worse it will be.

> Joint publication happens all the time.  I am much less worried about incon-
> sistencies between the IETF and W3C versions, than I am about inconsistencies
> internal to the document itself.

BTW, joint publication would be greatly simplified if the parties put their marks in the very
same document instead of doing their own versions.

Then by allowing a slightly more advanced way of describing things than offered
by plain-text you *may* even limit some problems with draft interpretation itself.

I have yet to see any really valid arguments (except for the absolute need for 7-bit ASCII
plain-text and "politics") for having TWO documents.

And in contrast to the AC-draft, there is a whole industry waiting for XML-DSIG!

/Anders