Re: Question about the edition of RFC 3280

[Denis Pinkas <Denis.Pinkas@xxxxxxxx>]

Stefan,

Thank you for the response.

I realize that very unfortunately both the sender of the message and the 
receivers of the message lost the message. :-|

Now, looking forward, I would like to make the following proposal:

Next week there is the RSA 2003 Security Conference. I will attend the 
Conference and I guess may other people from the PKIX WG will do so as well.

Since there is the speaker's dinner on the Tuesday and the Gala Dinner of 
the Wednesday, I propose to have an informal meeting about key usage bits 0 
and 1 on the Monday evening for anyone interrested.

I thus propose to meet in the North Lobby, in front of the registration 
desks at 5:30 p.m. on the Monday evening.

I would like to discuss the meaning of a certificate that has:

 1° only the key usage bit 1 set,
 2° only the key usage bit 0 set,
 3° both the key usage bits 0 and 1 set.

  ... when looking at the writing of RFC 2459 and
      when looking at the writing of RFC 3280.

Denis

Note: I blindly copy the OSI Security list, including Hoyt Kesterson who 
will be present at the Conference (and if he may join).


> Denis,
>
> At 12:10 2003-04-08 +0200, Denis Pinkas wrote:
>
> > > I do not know why you are asking about a change that happened a year 
> > > ago, but here is the history.  This took quite a bit of time to pull 
> > > together, and it involved searching the archives kept by several 
> > > different individuals.
> > > During IETF Last Call, the authors received a comment regarding the 
> > > key usage bits.  We have been unsuccessful in locating this email 
> > > message, so you will have to live with the personal recollection of 
> > > the content of this message.
> >
> >
> > It is quite strange that such a message has been lost by all the 
> > editors together. :-|
> >
> > Unless someone from the WG mailing list remember that he posted this 
> > message and makes itself known, the reality of the existence of this 
> > message will be questionable.
> >
> > Can anyone from the WG identifies himself as being the sender of the 
> > message that lead to that change ?
>
>
> I identify myself as the originator of this mail and confirm that the 
> aspect referred to by Russ was contained in my comment.
>
> I was asked to find this mail as part of the reconstruction you have 
> requested but was unable to do so due to a disk crash I suffered from 
> last year where I lost lots of old e-mail.
>
> /Stefan