Re: unqualified topic - not solved yet.

["Charles Moore" <cmoore@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: David P. Kemp <dpkemp@missi.ncsc.mil>
To: <ietf-pkix@imc.org>
Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 1:03 AM
Subject: RE: unqualified topic - not solved yet.


> The current QC profile (draft -02) does not require that any "feature"
> be populated  ... how did you get the impression that one particular
> attribute might be special-cased in the next draft?
cm> This email thread...

>
>snip
>
> The description of the Subject is not as clear, but in a roundabout
> manner it indicates that the unmistakable identity of the subject is
> specified using a set of attributes where no single attribute is
> required to be populated.

cm> This is the point...

As we seem to agree, just need to make the text align...

>
> Dave Kemp
>
>
>
> > From: Charles Moore <cmoore@spyrus.com.au>
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Anders Rundgren [mailto:anders.rundgren@jaybis.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 1 December 1999 20:18
> > To: 'ietf-pkix@imc.org'; 'Stefan Santesson'; 'Tony Bartoletti'; 'Charles
> > Moore'
> > Cc: 'David P. Kemp'
> > Subject: RE: unqualified topic - not solved yet.
> >
> >
> > Charles,
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > cm> If all certs must have an unique identifier then one CANNOT control
the
> > usage of the number....
> >
> > They don't.  This is just a "feature" that some QC-implementations
> > (profiles) require.
> >
> > If unique identifiers are bad or good is outside of the QC-draft.  The
> > technical reasons
> > for using them are pretty clear.    As well as the possible consequences
as
> > you point out.
> >
> > cm> My point was that the QC profile must not require that the "feature"
is
> > always populated... I belive that you agree....
>