Re: Logos: objection to charter revisions

[Stefan Santesson <stefan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Denis,

As I catch up the logo discussion, I think your questions are pretty much 
answered in the current draft.

In principle, there is no difference between the certificate types you 
mention regarding logos. What the logos means to the relying party is up to 
each relying party to define.

What is more important is that the different the logotypes have distinct 
meanings.

1) Subject organization logotype: The logotype of the organization 
specified in the subject field
2) Issuer Logotype: The logotype of the organization specified in the 
issuer field
3) Concept logotype: A logotype used by the issuer to represent the concept 
under which the certificate was issued.

The concept may represent a type of assurance level, policy or a family of 
distinct services shared between multiple CAs.

The meaning of these logotypes are the same for any type of certificate, 
but in general they are only used to enhance human recognition after the 
certificate having passed all other validation criteria for certificate 
reliance.

/Stefan


At 11:02 2001-09-06 +0200, Denis Pinkas wrote:


> After seeing all that discussion about logos, I realized that we had
> a solution (i.e. the draft writen by Stefan) for an unknown problem.
>
> 1) Are logos to be used in server certificates ?
>    If so, what would be their intended meaning ?
>
> 2) Are logos to be used in human-user certificates ?
>    If so, what would be their intended meaning ?
>
> 3) Are logos to be used in CA certificates ?
>    If so, what would be their intended meaning ?
>
> 4) Are logos to be used in self-signed certificates ?
>    If so, what would be their intented meaning ?
>
> I do not think that the meaning and the use of the logo information will
> necessarilly be the same for all of the above cases.
>
> If that topic is going to stay on the charter, before we define a solution
> we should first define the requirements. So an INFORMATIONAL RFC on the
> requirements should be the first step. This Informational RFC should at
> least answer to the questions raised above.
>
> Denis