IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Security AD Review of draft-ietf-pkix-ipki3cmp-05.txt

"Jeffrey I. Schiller" <jis@mit.edu> Mon, 10 November 1997 21:56 UTC

Return-Path: <jis@mit.edu>
Received: from consensus.com (mail.consensus.com [157.22.240.7]) by sparky.wovenword.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA27276 for <tim-mail-work-lists@wovenword.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 13:56:04 -0800
Received: from Tandem.com (192.216.221.8) by consensus.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 1.2); Mon, 10 Nov 1997 14:52:49 -0700
Received: from bozo.MIT.EDU (BOZO.MIT.EDU [18.72.0.198]) by Tandem.com (8.8.8/2.0.1) with SMTP id MAA16243 for <ietf-pkix@tandem.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 12:45:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rw-177.mit.edu by bozo.MIT.EDU with SMTP id UAA10284; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 20:45:14 GMT
Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971110154519.0310e258@e40-po.mit.edu>
X-Sender: jis@e40-po.mit.edu
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 15:45:19 -0500
To: Carlisle Adams <carlisle.adams@entrust.com>, "'kent@bbn.com'" <kent@bbn.com>, "'wford@verisign.com'" <wford@verisign.com>, "'stephen.farrell@sse.ie'" <stephen.farrell@sse.ie>
From: "Jeffrey I. Schiller" <jis@mit.edu>
Subject: RE: Security AD Review of draft-ietf-pkix-ipki3cmp-05.txt
Cc: "'ietf-pkix@tandem.com'" <ietf-pkix@tandem.com>
In-Reply-To: <c=CA%a=_%p=NorTel_Secure_Ne%l=APOLLO-971110201745Z-47016@m ail.entrust.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Status: 

Not to add to your workload, but... RFC2119 defines the terms MUST, MAY, 
SHOULD etc. You might want to add a reference to it and state that its 
definitions hold when the words are used in all upper-case in the PKIX 
documents (and arrange for the right words to be capitalized).

                                -Jeff

At 03:17 PM 11/10/97 -0500, Carlisle Adams wrote:
>Hi Jeff,
>
>Thanks for the comments.  I will issue a revised Internet Draft within
>the next couple of days.
>
>I have one slight counter-proposal, though.  I wonder if you can give us
>your feedback on this:
>
>>----------
>>From: 	Jeffrey I. Schiller[SMTP:jis@mit.edu]
>>Sent: 	Sunday, November 09, 1997 3:37 PM
>>To: 	Carlisle Adams; kent@bbn.com; wford@verisign.com; stephen.farrell@sse.ie
>>Cc: 	ietf-pkix@tandem.com
>>Subject: 	Security AD Review of draft-ietf-pkix-ipki3cmp-05.txt
>>
>>Part III Comments <draft-ietf-pkix-ipki3cmp-05.txt>:
>>
>>General: A Glossary would be a good idea, or a reference early in the 
>>document to an introductory document that contains a glossary.
>
>I think that a glossary could usefully be included in this document.
>However, there is much overlap in terminology over the full set of PKIX
>documents, so that I'm not sure that including it in this particular
>document is the best course of action.  My preference would be for the
>WG to produce a separate document (targeted as an Informational RFC)
>which serves as the "official" glossary for all other documents produced
>by the WG.  This glossary can be updated as time goes on (if necessary),
>and all other PKIX RFCs and IDs can point to this as the agreed
>definition-of-terms for the Internet X.509 PKI.
>
>One negative consequence of the above suggestion is that the current
>Certificate Management Protocol spec. would have no glossary to point to
>(since it doesn't exist yet).  On the positive side, there is no danger
>that  PKIX-CMP would be held up for an indefinite amount of time if (for
>whatever reason) "discussion" develops over the precise definitions of
>some terms.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>
>--------------------------------------------
>Carlisle Adams
>Entrust Technologies
>cadams@entrust.com
>--------------------------------------------
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email