Re: Deprecate the NR bit?

["todd Glassey" <todd.glassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bob, I heartily agree! and this is easily a posture that the proposed WG on
e-tokens could take up as Evidentiary Process models and proposed use
models. Part of its applicability statements that are mandated with this
WG's submissions, this could easily fit in well here with a "recommended use
model" for such technologies.

I applaud the sense of unloading the use specific issues from the core
enablement so that the use models, the reason for the protocol's existing in
the first place, can finally be defined.

Seems to me that building the Cart before the Horse and spending all this
time arguing about whether the horse has three or four legs is all that we
have accomplished so far.

Lets pull up to 50,000 and look at what we are trying to accomplish so that
the total bounding of the use of the NR bit and the whole protocol can be
evaluated as to what it actually accomplishes and how it does that.

Todd
----- Original Message -----
From: William Flanigan <flanigab@ncr.disa.mil>
To: Bob Jueneman <BJUENEMAN@novell.com>
Cc: <ginsburg@cygnacom.com>; <ietf-pkix@imc.org>
Sent: Friday, August 27, 1999 6:39 AM
Subject: Re: Deprecate the NR bit?


> Now, this makes sense!  What do others feel?
>
> Bob Jueneman wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> > My sense is that tempers are fraying, everyone's patience is wearing
> > decidedly thin, and that the group is getting quite frustrated by the
> > fact that we haven't been able to identify any single, reasonably
> > simple definition for what we mean by NR.
> >
> > If that is the case, I believe we should deprecate the NR bit within
> > PKIX, and then charter another WG to explore the interaction between
> > the certificate contents, application (as opposed to protocol) behavior,
> > and the business and legal issues involved with signed documents.
> >
> > Bob
>