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

Re: back to nothing, was Re: proposed key usaged text -- the final round

To: ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: back to nothing, was Re: proposed key usaged text -- the final round
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 20:20:54 +0000
Organization: Baltimore Technologies Ltd.
References: <> <> <> <>
Reply-to: stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxxxxx

...some 100s of messages later...

> If you want to deprecate the NR bit, please say so.

YES!!! More and more everytime I see this discussion.

Actually, I did have the idea that we mandate that CAs
MUST set this bit randomly whenever a keyUsage extension
is present, just to stop people who argue that its absence 
has a meaning.

Stpehen.

-- 
____________________________________________________________
Stephen Farrell         				   
Baltimore Technologies,   tel: (direct line) +353 1 647 7406
61 Fitzwilliam Lane,                    fax: +353 1 647 7499
Dublin 2.                mailto:stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie
Ireland                             http://www.baltimore.com

References:
- proposed key usaged text -- the final round
  - From: Russ Housley
- Re: proposed key usaged text -- the final round
  - From: Tim Polk
- Re: proposed key usaged text -- the final round
  - From: Denis Pinkas
- back to nothing, was Re: proposed key usaged text -- the final round
  - From: Ed Gerck

Prev by Date: back to nothing, was Re: proposed key usaged text -- the final round
Next by Date: Consensus Text for key usage?
Previous by thread: back to nothing, was Re: proposed key usaged text -- the final round
Next by thread: Re: proposed key usaged text -- the final round
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread