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

Re: draft-ietf-pkix-logotypes-06.txt


Denis:

1. Page 6. Section 3. Logotype data

"Implementations MUST support image data; however, support for audio data is
OPTIONAL." Audio is a good joke, in the same way, as pheromones. We are
supposed to deal with serious documents. Please delete.


I belive that the response from Tom Gindin shows that there is support for audio in support if disabled users. I believe that the document is clear that the support is OPTIONAL.


The document was not clear that the support is OPTIONAL. There is still much controversy about the need for it. No convincing arguments have been provided. Please delete or make a strawpoll. 

The first paragraph in section 3 says:
   This specification defines two types of logotype data: image data and
   audio data. Implementations MUST support image data; however, support
   for audio data is OPTIONAL.
What is unclear?

The text says:

Compliant applications MUST display more just one (or none) of the images *and* play just one (or none) of the audio sequences at the same time.

The "and" does not make it optional.

I think that displaying one image and playing zero audio sequences conforms with this sentence. if you disagree, please propose alternate wording for this sentence.


5. Page 7. Section 4.1.

We have:

communityLogo [0] EXPLICIT LogotypeInfo OPTIONAL,

      LogotypeInfo ::= CHOICE {
         direct          [0] LogotypeData,
         indirect        [1] LogotypeReference }

      LogotypeData ::= SEQUENCE {
         image           SEQUENCE OF LogotypeImage OPTIONAL,

No explanations are given on the text about what to do for a client when
there is more than one LogotypeImage present in a communityLogo.

First of all, a communityLogo may contain more than one logo which belongs
to one or more communities. However the client has no way to know whether
the LogotypeData includes different versions from the same logo (e.g. in
black and white or in color) or different logos.


This is not supported. The certificate may only include one image.
That image could be a composite of many different logos, if appropriate. We discussed this face-to-face in Yokohama. Discussion with people what develop graphical interfaces do not think it is a good idea to allow this complexity. Too many images will confuse the user.


When it is appropriate to include several community logos, they must be combined into one image to ensure that they are consistently displayed.
If this is not done, each client will render the images differently...


We still have different views on that topic, which is far more important than audio. To give a parallel: some banks are members of both VISA and EuroCard. Transposed into certificates, this may mean two logos. In the same way, a CA may be certifed by two laboratories. The logo of these two laboratories may be displayed.

So for community certificates, I am requesting the possibility to have more than one logo. The use of combined logos is not appropraite to solve this issue.

I do not believe that we can support this without creating significant confusion.

This is not an argument.

It must be. I just made it. ;-)

> However, it is simple and straightforward for a CA to
generate an image file that contains a combination of logos. This is the only way that I can see where the combined logo is consistently displayed.

No. There is no requirement to necessarily show both logos. If they are combined, then it would be mandatory to display both.

Your response is technology driven, since the current ASN.1 syntax does not allow for that case, your are trying to find a way to accomodate the need, without changing the syntax.

No. The authors wrote the syntax after considering this argument,

Many merchants have stickers on the doors to their retail shops that indicate the brands of credit cards that are accepted. They have one sticker with many logos. This is useful to the consumer because the logos always appear in the same configuration. I believe that the same argument applies here.

The syntax needs to be changed.

> If it is not consistent, then we have not helped the use
make a selection from a group of certificates without investigating details. 

It is still up to the client application to display or not when it wants,
in that case:

no logo (1), logo A (2), logo B (3), or both logo A and logo B (4).

I clearly disagree. The choice should be no logo and one logo image (which may be a combination of several logos if appropriate).

Russ