Re: WGLC results

[Stefan Santesson <[e-mail]>]

Steve,

On the TA requirements document I'm not sure in what way the WGLC impacts
its status as we are keeping this document in draft form. I would like to
have noted that there is one issue with this document that I have raised
repeatedly that I don't think is settled to my satisfaction.

I would like the scope of the requirements to be clarified. I have no
problems with these requirements, I just don't think they are generally
applicable and the document should be more clear about when they are.


On the CA Clearance Constraints I made a last pass and found some nit and a
comment that I think merits a discussion. I think the result of these
comments will be pure editorial, but I think they could benefit from some
discussion. If they are too late I can provide them as IETF last call
comments instead.

I'll post them in a separate mail.

/Stefan

On 2/9/09 8:59 PM, "Stephen Kent" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> Folks,
> 
> The WGLC on 5 documents closed on 2/6, so it's time to assess status.
> 
> 1. 3281 Update: Alfred suggested a few changes. I think Sean
> will need to address these in a new version, which can then be sent
> to the IESG.
> 
> 2. New ASN.1: A number of comments here. Most comments
> suggested that the new ASN.1 not be adopted in lieu of the 1988
> version, and that it would be nice to have a tutorial to help folks
> understand how to map between the two. So, I think this ca proceed,
> with the provision that the ASN.1 here is being specified as a peer,
> alternative to the 1988 syntax in the extant specs. Jim & Paul, are
> you comfortable with this way forward? Carl, you offered to help
> write the tutorial. We'll make it a PKIX work item when you create
> the first version.
> 
> 3. Authority Clearance Constraints: no comments during this
> last call period, so we'll consider this approved.
> 
> 4. PRQP: no comments, so I think we're ready to move this to
> Experimental status.
> 
> 5. Trust Anchor Management Requirements: I didn't see any
> messages on the requirements document, so I will assume that this doc
> is suitable for use as the basis for requirements for the rest of the
> trust anchor document work.
>