Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pkix-roadmap-04.txt

[Sean Turner <turners@xxxxxxxx>]

Ed,

Thanks for taking the time to review the document and sorry it took me so long to get to this
message.  That section hasn't changed since the first draft (draft-ietf-pkix-roadmap-01.txt).
Clearly there's been more discussion on the list and it needs to be updated.  But, I think it
captured the WG's feelings from around mid '98 timeframe.

spt

Ed Gerck wrote:

> Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote:
>
> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> > This draft is a work item of the Public-Key Infrastructure (X.509) Working Group of the IETF.
> >
> >         Title           : Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure PKIX Roadmap
> >         Author(s)       : A. Arsenault, S. Turner
> >         Filename        : draft-ietf-pkix-roadmap-04.txt
> >         Pages           : 40
> >         Date            : 22-Oct-99
>
> >From the above draft:
>
>    According to [SIMONETTI], the intent is that the digitalSignature bit
>    should be set when what is desired is the ability to sign ephemeral
>    transactions; e.g., for a single session authentication. These
>    transactions are "ephemeral" in the sense that they are important
>    only while they are in existence; after the session is terminated,
>    there is no long-term record of the digital signature and its
>    properties kept. When something is intended to be kept for some
>    period of time, the nonRepudiation bit should be set.
>
> The last phrase finds no support on what was discussed in this WG,
> non-repudiation is not a non-ephemeral digital signature.
>
> There are also other instances where the draft finds no support in
> the WG discussions, even when it says it has:
>
>     The discussion on the PKIX mailing list has centered on the
>    digitalSignature bit and the nonRepudiation bit. The question has
>    come down to something like: When support for the service of non-
>    repudiation is desired, should both the digitalSignature and
>    nonRepudiation bits be set, or just the nonRepudiation bit?
>
> because this question was neither substantive nor representative
> of the discussions -- unless "has come down to" means something
> else.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ed Gerck