IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt to Proposed Standard

ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com Wed, 11 February 2009 23:20 UTC

Return-Path: <ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0A773A6C13 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:20:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HjenZ1sw9FQm for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:20:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 196983A67CF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:20:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01N5DL6EV50W00YJES@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:20:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01N5B4E9D6PC00007A@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:20:43 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:18:55 -0800
From: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com
Subject: Re: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt to Proposed Standard
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:14:40 -0800 (PST)" <Pine.LNX.4.64.0902111513160.31861@egate.xpasc.com>
To: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Message-id: <01N5DL6BXVYM00007A@mauve.mrochek.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; format="flowed"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: <73E1DD05-C75B-47F5-92C5-21780818C0F7@colt.net> <01N5DDS79IA800007A@mauve.mrochek.com> <49933883.5050501@copiesofcopies.org> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0902111513160.31861@egate.xpasc.com>
Cc: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:20:48 -0000

> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009, Aaron Williamson wrote:

> > ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
> >> I completely disagree with this assessment. The points you mention are quite
> >> specifically talking about Agreements, not certificates.
> >
> > Yes, this is obviously right, "Agreements" are not certificates.  But I don't
> > think it's clear that storing Agreements covers only "a fairly specific set of

> Hmmmm, my interpretation would be that a certificate is in fact
> documentation of an agreement between the CA and the owner/user of the
> cert. I see no distinction between 'agreements' and 'certificates' in this
> context.

Again, the term "agreement" in this context has a specific meaning given in
item 2. IMO certs do not fit this definition. They're not even close.

				Ned

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status