Re: Cross-organizational ACs

[Steve Hanna <[e-mail]>]

Denis Pinkas wrote:
> Besides Stephen (and possibly the co-editors), it would be nice to
> know who is (or is not) in favour of AAControls.

This document has already passed WG Last Call and IETF Last Call.
Apparently, the consensus of the working group was to include the
AAControls extension. Although you and I don't agree with this, it's
probably too late to do anything about it unless there is a *major*
problem with the extension.

AAControls is an optional extension. It can be ignored. I suggest that
we allow it to be included for now and focus our energies on providing a
better delegation system (probably a profile of X.509 delegation,
focussed on the needs of Internet protocols). If we can accomplish that,
we can propose that AAControls be deprecated when ac509prof is ready to
move to Draft Standard status. After all, one purpose of Proposed
Standard documents (as described in RFC 2026) is to "gain experience and
to validate, test, and clarify the specification."

> If you plan to attend the next IETF meeting, I would like to have a
> chat with you, so that we can possibly define such delegation
> schemes. No syntax changes planed in the definition of ACs, simply
> the definition of rules on how to use them in the context of
> delegation.

I would love to do this. Anyone else who would like to participate,
please send me email and I will arrange an informal meeting.

-Steve