IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-ietf-pkix-rfc3770bis-01: key usage extension

Peter Sylvester <Peter.Sylvester@edelweb.fr> Fri, 15 April 2005 17:04 UTC

Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21612 for <pkix-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 13:04:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3FGUZf9087742; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:30:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3FGUZ9x087741; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:30:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from edelweb.fr (edelweb.fr [212.234.46.16]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3FGUXit087735 for <ietf-pkix@imc.org>; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:30:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Peter.Sylvester@edelweb.fr)
Received: from chandon.edelweb.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by edelweb.fr (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id j3FGUMn16599; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:30:22 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from chandon.edelweb.fr (chandon.edelweb.fr [193.51.14.162]) by edelweb.fr (nospam/2.0); Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:30:22 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: (from peter@localhost) by chandon.edelweb.fr (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.11.7) id j3FGUMw04316; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:30:22 +0200 (MEST)
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:30:22 +0200
From: Peter Sylvester <Peter.Sylvester@edelweb.fr>
Message-Id: <200504151630.j3FGUMw04316@chandon.edelweb.fr>
To: ietf-pkix@imc.org, housley@vigilsec.com
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-pkix-rfc3770bis-01: key usage extension
X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
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>

in addition to what I just said.
It seems that some mail from me got lost somewhere.


> 
> Peter:
> 
> You are the one that complained that there was not discussion of the key 
> usage extension.  I am happy to delete the whole paragraph ... you are the 
> one who asked for the topic to be covered.
> 
> How about this:
> 
>     If a certificate contains a key usage extension, the KeyUsage bits
>     that are needed depends on the EAP method that is employed.
> 
> Russ
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email