[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Cautionary Period
I agree with Russ. Simpler is better. Consider IKE vs. JFK.
Mike
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> Housley, Russ
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:10 PM
> To: ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Cautionary Period
>
>
>
> The updated Delegated Path Validation (DPV) and
> Delegated Path Discovery
> (DPD) Protocol Requirements document
> <draft-ietf-pkix-dpv-dpd-req-01.txt>
> was recently posted. You may notice that I am a
> co-author with Denis on
> this document. Denis invited me to be a co-author
> because I submitted many
> comments. There were many, many editorial ones.
> There were also technical
> ones. Denis and I were able to resolve the vast bulk
> of the technical
> issues; however, we have not been able to reach a
> compromise on one open
> issue. That issue is the subject of this note.
>
> I encourage everyone to read DPV and DPD requirements
> document, and post
> their view on this subject. I believe that the
> document expresses Denis'
> view on the issue. My view is that cautionary period
> is a not a
> requirement for DPV or DPD. However, cautionary
> periods might be used as
> part of an application-specific risk mitigation
> mechanism when trying to
> determine the validity of a particular signature.
> For example, waiting for
> cautionary period before considering a signature to
> be valid on a
> high-value electronic contract may be prudent.
> Therefore, cautionary
> periods might be supported in DSV (delegated
> signature validation).
>
> Since Denis and I were unable to resolve this issue
> in an author-to-author
> dialogue, I am bring this issue to the whole mail
> list. As far as I know,
> this is the only open issue with the DPV and DPD
> Protocol Requirements
> document. I hope that this issue can be quickly
> resolved so that we can
> get on with the protocol development.
>
> Russ
>