Re: Cautionary Period Straw Poll

["Yuriy Dzambasow" <yuriy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I believe that DPV protocols developed by the PKIX working group ought not
include support for a cautionary period.

I belive this because I believe that time stamps are more than adequate to
support most applications in determining the validity of a certificate
and/or signature, and adding a cautionary period just adds unnecessary
complexity to the DPV protocols.

Yuriy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Housley, Russ" <rhousley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 1:05 PM
Subject: Cautionary Period Straw Poll


>
>  From the previous thread (which seems to have died down), I think that
> everyone understands the Cautionary Period concept.  I am trying to
> determine whether there is a constituency for Cautionary Period in DPV.
>
> I would like people that have an opinion to vote by sending a message to
> the list.  The message should be structured as follows:
>
>            To: ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx
>            Subject: RE: Cautionary Period Straw Poll
>
>            I believe that DPV protocols developed by the PKIX working
group
>            [ought to | ought not] include support for a cautionary period.
>
>            [I belive this because ...]
>
> If you feel the need to reply to the rationale posted by  someone, please
> make that posting on the other thread.  Please do not clutter the straw
> poll voting with a debate.
>
> Thanks for your assistance and cooperation,
>    Russ
>