Re: [IETF-PKIX] draft meeting minutes

[Carlisle Adams <carlisle.adams@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Warwick,

>----------
>From:  Warwick Ford[SMTP:wford@VERISIGN.COM]
>Sent:  Sunday, December 14, 1997 2:33 AM
>To:    IETF-PKIX@LISTS.TANDEM.COM
>Subject:       Re: [IETF-PKIX] draft meeting minutes
>
>Steve:
>
>Great minutes, as usual!  I have just a couple of suggested mods:

...

>>At the second PKIX WG meeting, a compromise approach was announced,
>>reconciling CRS and CMP...
>
>Following is a proposed revision of this entire paragraph:
>
>At the second PKIX WG meeting, a compromise approach was announced, aimed
>at reconciling differences between CRS and CMP.  In essence, a common
>certificate request message syntax has been agreed, and CMP will adopt this
>syntax as the certificate request payload type within that protocol
>(replacing the current certificate request payload format).  CRS will be
>revised to also reference that syntax.  This new, harmonized certificate
>request format will appear as a separate RFC.  It is not anticipated that
>this will delay the progression of CMP to proposed standard, since it is
>simply a protocol syntax change for alignment purposes plus a splitting of
>one document into two in the interests of facilitating future developments.
> CRS will continue to progress, specifying the mapping of certificate
>management messages onto CMS and providing the vehicle for developing
>common formats for other certificate management messages (i.e., messages
>other than certificate request)."

This reflects what occurred at the PKIX meeting except for the last half
of the last sentence.  "...providing the vehicle for developing common
formats for other certificate management messages..." gives the strong
impression that some or all of the remaining messages will change (as
the request message did).  I don't believe this was ever voiced in my
hearing and I am sure it was not mentioned to the WG.  All that was said
was that over time the remaining messages may migrate out of CMP into
other documents.

Note that with the cert request message we had two formats (CMP and PKCS
#10)  --  nobody wanted two formats so it was necessary that we
harmonize these into a single format.  The compromise made was that this
single format would be new (i.e., neither CMP nor PKCS #10).  We do not
have this situation with any of the other messages (i.e., there *is*
only a single format), so the underlying assumption that we need to
"develop common formats for these other messages" seems unfounded.


--------------------------------------------
Carlisle Adams
Entrust Technologies
cadams@entrust.com
--------------------------------------------