RE: ldapv2-schema and CA Certificates

[Santosh Chokhani <chokhani@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mr. Henry:

I am not clear on what point your are making.  The following are the
facts:

The interpretation we have offered is more valid than the current ldap
draft.

We have provided sound technical rationale for our interpretation.

The X.509 defect resolution did not have sound technical reason for it.

Feel free to shed any technical merits and demerits of the two
alternatives.

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	WHenry [SMTP:WHenry@pec.com]
	Sent:	Thursday, August 13, 1998 2:27 PM
	To:	'Yuriy Dzambasow'
	Cc:	'ietf-pkix@imc.org'
	Subject:	RE: ldapv2-schema and CA Certificates

	 Is this DMS or the new Medium Assurance PKI (i.e. Netscape)? If
you're
	referring to DMS my only comment would be: $1billion (and
growing)and 10
	years later I guess that's what we paid for. Except, no one
outside U.S.
	Govt (i.e. industry) is implementing DMS.

	 Does anyone have any comment on the new Cylink PKI being
fielded for the
	U.S. Postal Service? Maybe the functional requirements for USPS
are
	different than those supported by PKIX and DMS...?

	> -----Original Message-----
	> From:	Yuriy Dzambasow [SMTP:ydzambasow@spyrus.com]
	> Sent:	Thursday, August 13, 1998 2:06 PM
	> To:	Stephen Kent; WHenry
	> Cc:	ietf-pkix@imc.org
	> Subject:	RE: ldapv2-schema and CA Certificates
	> 
	> In addition, there is currently over 100 CA workstations
deployed today
	> within the DoD (all under one common Root), with more planned
for
	> fielding.
	> This is a very real, fully operational, deployed base of CAs.
	> 
	> Yuriy
	> 
	> -----Original Message-----
	> From:	owner-ietf-pkix@imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-pkix@imc.org]
On Behalf
	> Of
	> Stephen Kent
	> Sent:	Thursday, August 13, 1998 12:46 PM
	> To:	WHenry
	> Cc:	'ietf-pkix@imc.org'
	> Subject:	RE: ldapv2-schema and CA Certificates
	> 
	> The first large scale U.S Gov PKI was established in the
mid-80s and
	> served
	> about 500,000 secure telephone users, both in gov jobs and in
the gov
	> contractor sector.
	> 
	> Steve
	> 
	>