Re: draft survey form

Steve Kille <S.Kille@cs.ucl.ac.uk> Wed, 24 April 1991 15:17 UTC

Received: by merit.edu (5.65/1123-1.0) id AA05198; Wed, 24 Apr 91 11:17:33 -0400
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by merit.edu (5.65/1123-1.0) id AA05192; Wed, 24 Apr 91 11:17:28 -0400
Received: from glenlivet.cs.ucl.ac.uk by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with SMTP inbound id <13436-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Wed, 24 Apr 1991 16:02:00 +0100
To: James M Galvin <galvin@TIS.com>
Cc: disi, wright@lbl.gov
Subject: Re: draft survey form
Phone: +44-71-380-7294
In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 09 Apr 91 08:47:39 -0400. <9104091247.AA16754@TIS.COM>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 91 16:01:58 +0100
Message-Id: <3528.672505318@UK.AC.UCL.CS>
From: Steve Kille <S.Kille@cs.ucl.ac.uk>

I'd suggest that the best way to achieve this is to have the survey ask for
a statement according to 9.2.1 of X.519.   This brings out a list of key 
options, including security support.

Steve


 >From:  James M Galvin <galvin@com.TIS>;
 >To:    Ruth Lang <rlang@com.sri.nisc>;
 >Subject: Re: draft survey form
 >Date:  Tue, 09 Apr 91 08:47:39 -0400

 >	COMPLETENESS:

 >	<State compliance with or describe any voids in implementation with
 >	respect to both the '88 standard and the 88 OIW Implementation
 >	Agreements.  E.g., '88 Standard: Search function not yet
 >	implemented.>

 >What do you think about calling out security features the same way you call
 >out the search function:

 >	E.g., '88 Standard: Search function not yet implemented or Strong
 >	authentication not yet implemented.

 >Jim