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

Re: A $25,000,000,000 PKI Was:Spec. on QC-low-fat & QC-heavy-bio

To: ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: A $25,000,000,000 PKI Was:Spec. on QC-low-fat & QC-heavy-bio
From: Paul Krumviede <paul@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 21:24:26 -0700
Cc: "'SEIS-List'" <list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-pkix/mail-archive/>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-pkix-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Organization: MCI WorldCom
References: <>
Sender: owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx

Stephen Kent wrote:
> 
> Anders,

> >> As I said
> >>before, you should pursue any implementation approach you think is
> >>fruitful, but don't ask this standards body to tailor parts of its work to
> >>facilitate your (decidely nont mainstream) approach to using certs.
> >
> >It COULD  become mainstream...
> >
> >Now we both know pretty well where we stand in this case so
> >could please somebody else comment on this?
> 
> I'm sure they will.

One somebody else's comment:

I'm uncomfortable with the suggested use of certs.

-paul

References:
- Re: A $25,000,000,000 PKI Was:Spec. on QC-low-fat & QC-heavy-bio
  - From: Stephen Kent

Prev by Date: RE: SEIS: RE: Certificates, Directories, and Distinguished Names
Next by Date: Re: A $25,000,000,000 PKI Was:Spec. on QC-low-fat & QC-heavy-bio
Previous by thread: Re: A $25,000,000,000 PKI Was:Spec. on QC-low-fat & QC-heavy-bio
Next by thread: RE: A $25,000,000,000 PKI Was:Spec. on QC-low-fat & QC-heavy-bio
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread