Re: [IETF-PKIX] CMP Progression

["David P. Kemp" <dpkemp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Warwick Ford <wford@verisign.com>
>
> These documents will now be submitted back to the IESG with a
> recommendation for publication as RFCs specifying Proposed Standards.
>
> Congratulations to the editors for their relentless efforts to resolve the
> issues surrounding these documents!


As a member of the team that produced one of the documents, let me say
that no one is as pleased as we are to see them moving forward.

I am aware of only one remaining open issue with the CRMF document.
The registration info field defines two methods for carrying certificate
content between a Registration Agent and the CA; call them methods A and B.
CRMF currently contains no conformance requirements, thus support for
both A and B is optional.

The IESG may insist, as they have in other working groups, on minimum
conformance requirements which ensure interoperability between
PKIX-conformant clients and servers.  In the case of CRMF, such
requirements would designate either A or B (or both) as
mandatory-to-implement.

This Working Group may wish to consider whether conformance requirements
should be included in the CRMF specification, included in some other
IETF specification, or left up to community-specific profiles.  I expect
that the question will be raised by the IESG; if we wish to progress the
specification, we should have an answer ready.