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

Re: non repudiation

Title: Re: non repudiation
please note that the DTC states that the original identifier is not considered invalid but is deprecated. so if the name is an issue, it is not an error to change it in the modules used to define your product.

i tried to come up with a way to assign different identifiers to the same list but that seems not to be possible.  if someone comes up with a way to do it, i am more than willing to amend the DTC. i had intended to post the DTCs a little later to avoid responding to comments until after the holidays but it looks like that also is not possible.i'll post several new items today

as for changing the name of the bit, much discussion, ballot comment, and negotiation. this action was not taken lightly. if you want to see some of the reasons, look at the us ballot comments in ftp://ftp.bull.com/pub/OSIdirectory/Geneva2003Input/N12408SoVDTC6X509(4th).pdf

the ballot close date for the DTC is 12 march 2004. potential ballot comments should go to your national representative. please forgive me if i am not immediately responsive to comments and questions until after the next week. i lost a lot of thanksgiving to preparing this and other documents and i don't intend to lose christmas

   hoyt


At 17:57 +0100 12/18/03, Peter Sylvester wrote:
There is currently a new proposal to change again the
meaning of the key usage bit for non repudiation:


http://www.pki-page.info/download/N12599.doc


My opinion is that changing the name of a bit may
create harm in ASN1 compiler generated structures
used in all kinds of application, examples are
CA software that uses the documented name of bit
may/must be changed to support or not the new
name. if the software is simply compiled with a new
asn1 definition, this may have impacts to
all kinds of scripts, profile definitions etc.

The text itself says that whether or not the bit
is named in the old or new way, the semantics
is as defined in the proposal, in other words,
why changing at all the name of a bit.

Having that this does not mean that I have any
particular comment concerning the semantics
of that bit.



Peter