IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: New Liaison Statement, "Liaison to IETF on the resolution of DR320"

Ryan Hurst <Ryan.Hurst@microsoft.com> Wed, 10 October 2007 01:23 UTC

Return-path: <owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org>
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IfQI2-0007VI-4w for pkix-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 21:23:10 -0400
Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IfQI0-0003Zx-9V for pkix-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 21:23:10 -0400
Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l9A0m0Ed031696 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 9 Oct 2007 17:48:00 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l9A0m0G5031695; Tue, 9 Oct 2007 17:48:00 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (smtp.microsoft.com [131.107.115.212]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l9A0lxHr031681 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) for <ietf-pkix@imc.org>; Tue, 9 Oct 2007 17:47:59 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from Ryan.Hurst@microsoft.com)
Received: from tk1-exhub-c101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.56.116.111) by TK5-EXGWY-E801.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.177.2; Tue, 9 Oct 2007 17:47:58 -0700
Received: from tk5-exmlt-w602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.70.14) by tk1-exhub-c101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.56.116.111) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.177.1; Tue, 9 Oct 2007 17:47:58 -0700
Received: from tk5-exmlt-w600.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.70.135) by TK5-EXMLT-W602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.70.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.122.1; Tue, 9 Oct 2007 17:47:58 -0700
Received: from NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([fe80:0000:0000:0000:0000:5efe:10.255.255.1]) by tk5-exmlt-w600.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.70.135]) with mapi; Tue, 9 Oct 2007 17:47:57 -0700
From: Ryan Hurst <Ryan.Hurst@microsoft.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, "ietf-pkix@imc.org" <ietf-pkix@imc.org>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:47:04 -0700
Subject: RE: New Liaison Statement, "Liaison to IETF on the resolution of DR320"
Thread-Topic: New Liaison Statement, "Liaison to IETF on the resolution of DR320"
Thread-Index: AcgKzZxltkRrReFyRT64cVGN88qeOAACXdg5
Message-ID: <FD8C33C9BEC73E4A9034D0B11FA98260B9B3049A39@NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
References: <E1Idm2x-0000Nw-Cb@ietf.org> <200710051410.l95EAhr5017333@balder-227.proper.com>, <p0624082ec331ae817d64@[192.168.1.100]>
In-Reply-To: <p0624082ec331ae817d64@[192.168.1.100]>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by balder-227.proper.com id l9A0m0Hq031686
Sender: owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-pkix/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-pkix.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-pkix-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b

All of these statements are true.

Words fail me is as fine a response to that as any...

________________________________________
From: owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org [owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org] On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman [paul.hoffman@vpnc.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 3:25 PM
To: Russ Housley; ietf-pkix@imc.org
Subject: Re: New Liaison Statement, "Liaison to IETF on the resolution   of  DR320"

The ITU statement says the following:

>>One of the participants in the directory meeting stated that
>>Certification Authorities are being deployed with names not
>>acquired from naming authorities but with names arbitrarily chosen
>>assuming that no other CA is or will be operating under that name.

That is, of course, true. There is no central repository for CA names
because there is no central authority for CAs.

>>That participant further stated that the IETF provides no
>>guidelines on ensuring that the names of CAs are unambiguous.

That is true.

>>The directory group requests the IETF PKIX group to comment on this
>>statement.

Should we make a consensus call on "that is true"?

>>If the statement is correct, we ask the IETF to consider putting a
>>mechanism in place to prevent conflict, e.g. a list of existing CA
>>names that deployers of new CAs could check for naming conflicts.

Words fail me.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email