Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pkix-logotypes-07.txt

[Denis Pinkas <Denis.Pinkas@xxxxxxxx>]

Stefan,

> I argue against multiple logotypes,

Let us see what your arguments are.

> We have already a structure for different versions of the same logotype.

I would not say "versions", I would say "presentations" or "variants".

> if we add the possibility to have multiple logos, and for each logo,
> we may have different version (different resolutions, color sets,
> sizes...) then we do 2 bad things.

> 1) We expand the concept beyond the intended scope
> 2) We make it harder and more complex for the GUI implementers to make a
> distinct application.

What is the "intended scope" ? Until it is clearly defined, you cannot say
that this is contradictory. So there is no demonstration here.

What is harder ? Display is always an option. We do not mandate what MUST be
displayed.

> Denis,
>
> We had this discussion in Yokohama and all examples you came up with had
> to do with loyalty structures rather than communities. The community logo
> represent THE community within which the issuer acts as issuer.

Besides loyalty structures (BTW, where do you place them ?), there is as an
example "t-scheme approved" or what ever other "scheme" in Asia or in the
US. Same question: where do you place that information ?

> Example - A credit card can never be both MasterCard and VISA at the
> same time. If it would, who would be responsible for it if something
> goes wrong???

Some merchants are accepting credit cards from Visa, Eurocard, and AMEX.
How are you going to be able to include that information in a server 
certificate ?

Some cards in my country have both the CB logo (CB = Carte Bancaire) and the 
Eurocard or VISA Logo.

How are you going to be able to include that information in a person 
certificate issued by a bank ?

> If the community, within which the issuer operates when issuing a
> particular certificate, has a combined logo from two integrated
> community structures -
> Fine - This is then still just 1 community logo from the standards
> perspective.

We never said that logos MUST be displayed. An application may look for a
given logo and chose to display it, if present. Combined logos would not
allow that feature and would be pretty big or unreadable since an
application would need to display, e.g. four, logos in a small window size.

> I agree though that you can have multiple independent loyalty schemes.

Fine. Where do you place them ?

> Last time you raised this, we gave you the multiple and independent
> loyalty logos and you where satisfied with that, What has changed?

You showed me that a sequence was present in the ASN.1 syntax and thus that
the need what covered. While looking more carefully, there is indeed a
sequence but it cannot be used in this way.

    image           SEQUENCE OF LogotypeImage OPTIONAL,

There are very few (i.e. not enough explanations about the various fields).
In particular the image field is not explained (and it should !) and thus
there is no conformance clause for it (i.e. no SHALL or SHOULD).

Since a sentence is saying:

    If a logotype is represented by more than one image file, then the
    image files MUST contain variants of the roughly the same image.

My understanding is the following:

image contains one or more variants of the roughly the same image. No more
that one of the LogotypeImage SHALL be displayed, since it is roughly the
same image.

This does not permit to include images that are really different.

I am asking for:

          communityLogo   [0] EXPLICIT SEQUENCE OF LogotypeInfo OPTIONAL,

instead of:

          communityLogo   [0] EXPLICIT LogotypeInfo OPTIONAL,

I hope that the above examples will be able to convince you.

Denis


> /Stefan
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>>[mailto:owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Housley, Russ
>>Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 3:17 PM
>>To: ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx
>>Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pkix-logotypes-07.txt
>>
>>
>>
>>This update captures the things that have agreed.  The biggest change is
>>the support in the syntax for color and gray scale images.  Many other
>>little changes are included.
>>
>>As I see it, there are two open issues:
>>    1) Removal of audio; and
>>    2) Support for more than one logotype in each of the categories
>>
>>These two topics are still being discussed on the list.
>>
>>Russ
>>
>>
>>>        Title           : Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure:
>>>Logotypes in
>>>                          X.509 certificates
>>>        Author(s)       : S. Santesson, R. Housley, T. Freeman
>>>        Filename        : draft-ietf-pkix-logotypes-07.txt
>>>        Pages           : 21
>>>        Date            : 2002-10-28
>>
>
>