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

Re: EmailAddress history question

To: <ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx>, <ietf-smime@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: EmailAddress history question
From: "Anders Rundgren" <anders.rundgren@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 14:09:34 +0100
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-smime/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-smime.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-smime-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <>
Sender: owner-ietf-smime@xxxxxxxxxxxx

All,
I have no interests in  maintaining a debate that leads nowhere.
I have simply concluded that the *market* in the form of VeriSign
(e-mail certs), Microsoft (CertServ) and lots of more obscure players
have opted to [silently] disregard the 2459 in *this* particular case.
IMHO the weight of that should have made an impression in son-of-2459.

Case closed.  We can now all happily go back to our current
"best practices" or "favorite deprecations"!   :-)

Anders

References:
- RE: EmailAddress history question
  - From: Tom Gindin

Prev by Date: RE: EmailAddress history question
Next by Date: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-smime-examples-07.txt
Previous by thread: RE: EmailAddress history question
Next by thread: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-smime-examples-07.txt
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread