Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pkix-dpv-dpd-req-01.txt

[Denis Pinkas <Denis.Pinkas@xxxxxxxx>]

> Denis:
 
> > > The structure of SCVP makes it very easy to add support of attribute
> > > certificates (or PGP certificates for that matter) at a later date.
> >
> >We are not talking of solutions at this time, but only of requirements.
> >So the question is whether we add in the requirements document some text
> >to cover attribute certificates. If we do, which text ?
 
> I raised this question in Salt Lake City.  The group did not want to
> address DPV for attribute certificates at this time.  

Good, I did not remembered, 
... since the meeting report has not yet been distributed to the list. :-(

> The point that I was
> trying to make above is that the protocol design allows us to easily add
> this support in the future.

No protocol has been elected at this time, so this sentence is still not
appropriate. Let us close this debate.

Denis
 
> >We have not say, at this time, whether SCVP or some flavor of it, will be
> >the protocol that answers to these requirements.
> 
> It is not a requirement!
> 
> Russ