Re: New Liaison Statement, "Liaison to IETF on the removal of upper bound in X.509"

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Sat, 06 October 2007 20:33 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 1IeGL4-0002AS-9y for pkix-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:33:30 -0400
Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IeGKz-00064P-0a for pkix-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:33:26 -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 l96Jnwwm062261 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 6 Oct 2007 12:49:58 -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 l96JnwK9062260; Sat, 6 Oct 2007 12:49:58 -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 relay.imagine.ie (dns1.dns.imagine.ie [87.232.1.40]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l96Jntgj062251 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <ietf-pkix@imc.org>; Sat, 6 Oct 2007 12:49:57 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie)
Received: from mail1.int.imagine.ie (mail1 [87.232.1.152]) by relay.imagine.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3E1F325D1; Sat, 6 Oct 2007 20:49:54 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dsl-102-234.cust.imagine.ie [87.232.102.234]) by mail1.int.imagine.ie (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id l96JnqV4005913 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 6 Oct 2007 20:49:52 +0100
Message-ID: <4707E6DA.1070703@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:49:46 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
CC: ietf-pkix@imc.org
Subject: Re: New Liaison Statement, "Liaison to IETF on the removal of upper bound in X.509"
References: <7.1.0.9.2.20071005094401.0801cb08@vigilsec.com> <200710061323.l96DN5qg032032@balder-227.proper.com>
In-Reply-To: <200710061323.l96DN5qg032032@balder-227.proper.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bayes-Prob: 0.9355 (Score 4)
X-Spam-Score: 4.00 (****) [Hold at 8.00]
X-Canit-Stats-ID: 15824530 - fdba0e01b20b
X-CanItPRO-Stream: outgoing
X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 87.232.1.52
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: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199



Russ Housley wrote:
> Personally, I missed the subtle change from normative to informative.  I 
> suspect many others did too.  If the PKIX WG to make them informative 
> too, then it will have to be done *right now*.  

I see no reason to make such a change at this stage.

S.