RE: CA vs. EE cert processing

[Stephen Kent <kent@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alan,

>
>I am also surprised that with the number of X.500 specialists on this
>list that they are not saying that X.509 has errors.
>I think most of think that X.509 is a standard that provides a
>transition strategy to the use of extensions. And RFC 2450 is a profile
>(hence its title) that determines how (repeat HOW) that standard is
>used.
>If the profile reflects an ambiguity (which is deemed by a few) in the
>standard, then the profile document has failed.
>
>Simple isnt it.

Simplie or simplistic :-).

Based on my quite a few years of experience in the IETF community, I'd say
that tone and duration of this message exchange have deterred many people
from joining in.  I have received several private messages expressing
support for the position I have stated, but these, and probably other
folks, don't want to become engaged in a protracted e-mail exchange of this
sort.

I've submitted a defect report to the X.509 editor and the matter will be
addressed at the meeting next week.  I suggest we not waste time on the
list until we hear from the X.509 folks.

steve