[Anima] on certification authorities.

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 26 June 2020 21:56 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00B303A0CDB; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 14:56:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vDesNArbJ1Mb; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 14:56:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 248D33A0CBE; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 14:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21B5C389A1; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 17:54:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([]) by localhost (localhost []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id mJYdoEzqxphY; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 17:53:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca []) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDC0C389A0; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 17:53:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A838F5; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 17:56:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: spasm@ietf.org, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, anima@ietf.org, Ben Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
CC: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, Ryan Sleevi <ryan-ietf@sleevi.com>
In-Reply-To: <C71BDB46-A15A-48EC-BC4D-68CA9A7C1DFB@vigilsec.com>
References: <20200624023407.GA41244@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <C71BDB46-A15A-48EC-BC4D-68CA9A7C1DFB@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 17:56:42 -0400
Message-ID: <13005.1593208602@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/Ko0D06C8grBNuOXBqZOIGLZTMdg>
Subject: [Anima] on certification authorities.
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 21:56:47 -0000

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
    > Thank you.  Many people get it wrong, but X.509 and RFC 5280 (as well
    > as the earlier versions in RFC 2459 and RFC 3280) all use
    > {CA=} "certification authority".

I guess it might be worth spreading this point more widely :-)
I'll all for stamping out the wrong expansions, even if it sometimes seems pendantic.

I'm told that Google is about to start their Cloud *Certificate* Authority.
If that happens, I believe that any chance to assert the term will be
completely lost :-)

On the other hand, if they go with "certification authority", then perhaps
the tide of the terminology will be reversed.

Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-