RE: Storage of CA Certificates in LDAP and X.500 Directory Attributes

[Sharon Boeyen <sharon.boeyen@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm flexible on the term and have passed that on to Santosh (awaiting his
reply).  I see nothing wrong with scope or realm and am open to suggestion.
I agree that it would be good to select a term that doesn't have a
predefined meaning in the IETF. 
It is important to keep the definition of the specific criteria for its use
as a local matter so this mechanism can be used in different environments
with different criteria for the 'hints' provided by the CA to relying
parties, regardless of whether relying parties choose to examine those hints
or not. That, we've been in agreement on thoughout this debate, but I'm
quite agreeable to a different 'less loaded' term.



> ----------
> From: 	bgmiller[SMTP:bgmiller@dc.jones.com]
> Sent: 	September 16, 1998 10:26 PM
> To: 	ietf-pkix@imc.org
> Subject: 	Re: Storage of CA Certificates in LDAP and X.500 Directory
> Attributes
> 
> 
> 
> Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
> 
> > I agree with David. The word "domain" has a specific meaning in the
> IETF,
> > and this definition doesn't match it. Could you use "realm" instead? Or
> are
> > there better words?
> 
> How about "scope"?
>