draft-ietf-pkix-rfc3770bis-01: Section 2

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

Note:  I am starting a separate thread for each of the unresolved 
issues.  I hope this draws more people into the discussion.

Peter:

> > >This restriction is new, and I don't see why this is necessary.
> > >I am not sure, but I don't know of any other purpose that has
> > >a restriction like this, and current scvp specs don't allow to
> > >check for this (you cannot specify MUST NOT).
> >
> > The IETF (or anyone else for that matter) should not specify EAP methods
> > that expect either of these key usage bits to be set.
> >
> > You are primarily asking for sentence to be deleted. The sentences that 
> you
> > would like to see go away are in RFC 3770, so I think that the removal
> > needs to be justified.
>
>The initial text was an inconsistent adoption from something of 2459 and 3280.
>This demonstrates the problematics of copying text portions "for convenience."
>Correcting the text as is still does not give a complete picture since it
>is only a subset of rfc 3280. This kind of 'layman guide to 3280' doesn't
>seem appropriate to me here.
>
>Also, 3280 is under revision, if it happens that the corresponding text
>gets clarified in some way, one would have something considered
>unprecise elsewhere.

I do not understand the harm that you believe is being caused.

Russ