IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Tue, 23 October 2007 00:08 UTC

Return-path: <owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org>
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ik7Jm-0007Ja-9O for pkix-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:08:22 -0400
Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ik7Jl-0007tU-Mq for pkix-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:08:22 -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 l9MNIHjr078959 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:18:17 -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 l9MNIHKP078958; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:18:17 -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 [165.227.249.203] (adsl-66-125-125-65.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [66.125.125.65]) (authenticated bits=0) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l9MNHfUd078933 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:17:42 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240802c342db15b149@[165.227.249.203]>
In-Reply-To: <OFA143DBA4.DC514024-ONC125737C.0041418F@frcl.bull.fr>
References: <OFA143DBA4.DC514024-ONC125737C.0041418F@frcl.bull.fr>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:16:09 -0700
To: Denis Pinkas <denis.pinkas@bull.net>, "ietf-pkix@imc.org" <ietf-pkix@imc.org>
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Subject: Re: New Liaison Statement, "Liaison to IETF on the resolution of DR320"
Cc: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
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: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab

At 1:52 PM +0200 10/22/07, Denis Pinkas wrote:
>I agree with what you say. However", Words fail me" may have 
>multiple interpretations.
>We are going to invent a mechanism to prevent conflict, e.g. a list 
>of existing CA
>names that deployers of new CAs could check for naming conflicts.

When you say "We", if you mean the IETF, then, yes, you have indeed 
gotten the wrong sense of my statement.

>The implications are that DR 320 has been rejected by the directory 
>group on a wrong basis.

It would be unwise for the PKIX WG to get embroiled in the ITU's 
disagreements here. We should wait for a clear statement from them 
about what they believe is their response to the issue, then we can 
work with that.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email