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

Re: CA vs. EE cert processing

To: "Aram Perez" <aram@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: CA vs. EE cert processing
From: Stephen Kent <kent@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 21:03:33 -0400
Cc: ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-pkix/mail-archive/>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-pkix-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Sender: owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx

Aram,

>My two cents: I agree with John. Given that RFC2459 is not a "standard" yet
>and thus no standard-compliant software exists out there, we should "fix"
>RFC2459 to do the right thing for existing legacy software, and the new
>RFC2459 compliant software.

The right thing is to avoid the ambiguity introduced by X.509; changing
2459 cannot fix that.  2459 is not broken, so please don't use the term
"fix" when referring to it.

Steve

Follow-Ups:
- Re: CA vs. EE cert processing
  - From: Moshe Litvin

References:
- Re: CA vs. EE cert processing
  - From: Aram Perez

Prev by Date: Re: CA vs. EE cert processing
Next by Date: CMP message format. A naive question
Previous by thread: Re: CA vs. EE cert processing
Next by thread: Re: CA vs. EE cert processing
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread