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

Re: RFC 3039 problems - Was: Re: The IETF 56 - PKIX Agenda




Todd,


Is there anything in this statment that reveals any problem with the way RFC 3039 defines use of the SN attribute?

/Stefan

At 14:53 2003-03-11 -0800, todd glassey wrote:
Stefan - the key issue is that SN's are only comparable to SN's issued by
the same instance or ones that are correlated between instances. The SN
itself is a component of the Policy Control process and so it is only
relevant to like instances, which is why timestamps are so important - since
they in many senses represent portable SN's - or ones that are easily
compared between machines.

Todd

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefan Santesson" <stefan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Denis Pinkas" <Denis.Pinkas@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: RFC 3039 problems - Was: Re: The IETF 56 - PKIX Agenda


> > At 17:57 2003-03-11 +0100, Denis Pinkas wrote: > >I do kown that in fact 676767666767 would allow to uniquely identify the > individual, but this is not the semantics of that attribute. > > Denis, > > Where is the semantics broken? > > Who says that a serial number need to start with 1 and be sequential with > increment = 1 > > You have only to look at most software products, TV sets or similar to see > another truth. > 676767666767 is a perfectly fine serial number to me. > > /Stefan > > > > > _____________________________ > Stefan Santesson, Retrospekt AB > http://www.retrospekt.com > +46-706 443351 >

_____________________________
Stefan Santesson, Retrospekt AB
http://www.retrospekt.com
+46-706 443351