[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Updating RFC 3039 - and its impact on PI


Maybe I should clarify myself.

I believe that many of the functionality aspects, that PI was design to meet, is achieved by defining semantics of data stored in DN attributes.

I just want to invite people who think they need the PI solution to see what they can do with attribute semantics and open the discussion to suggestions that would further improve this solution.

Maybe this would reduce the need for a separate PI solution to the extent where its just not justified to make YAP. But I remain open to that issue.

/Stefan


At 17:36 2002-03-15 -0400, Roberto Opazo Gazmuri wrote:

> > Finally I believe that a revision of RFC 3039 should include
> > considerations to avoid the need for a PI extension according to the PI
> > draft.
> >
> > I can't see that the PI draft accomplish anything that RFC 3039 doesn't
> > already solve, or at least would solve after revision.
>
> The revised document will not be able to solve what the PI document covers
> since the PI document applies to *any entity* whereas the revised RFC 3039
> document is planned to apply only to *personal ID certificates*. Maybe the
> revised RFC 3039 could take advantage and refer to the PI document.
>

I agree.

The PI purpose is important enough to be in an independent discussion and
RFC, even considering than QC could be modified to apply to any entity.

Best regards,

Roberto