Re: Open Issue in Part1: path length constraints

[Steve Hanna <steve.hanna@xxxxxxx>]

Steve Hanna wrote:
> P.S. I have not seen anything approaching rough consensus on the basic
> question of which of these semantics we should use. John Linn and I
> have sent email favoring the RFC 2459 semantics (pathLenConstraint
> being the maximum number of subsequent CA certificates allowed). You
> and David Cross have sent email favoring the new-part1 semantics
> (pathLenConstraint being the maximum number of intermediate
> certificates allowed). If there is no further discussion on the list,
> we may need to check consensus in Minneapolis.

I forgot that David Cooper also sent email favoring the new-part1
semantics. Sorry! That makes three Davids in favor of the new-part1
semantics and Steve and John in favor of the RFC 2459 semantics. Still
closely divided.

-Steve