IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Wed, 10 October 2007 04:55 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 1IfTb3-0003q5-T2 for pkix-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:55:01 -0400
Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IfTar-0001Xa-Jn for pkix-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:54:55 -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 l9A41HA0047579 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 9 Oct 2007 21:01:17 -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 l9A41HJB047578; Tue, 9 Oct 2007 21:01:17 -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 mail.globalsuite.net (mail.globalsuite.net [69.46.103.200]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id l9A41GCm047569 for <ietf-pkix@imc.org>; Tue, 9 Oct 2007 21:01:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie)
X-AuditID: c0a8013c-a911ebb000005df2-ec-470c4e8a45d4
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [66.173.75.2]) by mail.globalsuite.net (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id CC9594DC032; Tue, 9 Oct 2007 22:01:13 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <470C4E85.4010802@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 05:01:09 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Steven Legg <steven.legg@eb2bcom.com>
CC: "Kemp, David P." <DPKemp@missi.ncsc.mil>, ietf-pkix@imc.org
Subject: Re: New Liaison Statement, "Liaison to IETF on the removal of upper bound in X.509"
References: <4707E6DA.1070703@cs.tcd.ie> <2788466ED3E31C418E9ACC5C316615570536E1@mou1wnexmb09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <FA998122A677CF4390C1E291BFCF59890849839E@EXCH.missi.ncsc.mil> <470BB253.3030703@cs.tcd.ie> <FA998122A677CF4390C1E291BFCF598908498416@EXCH.missi.ncsc.mil> <470C1C32.70603@eb2bcom.com>
In-Reply-To: <470C1C32.70603@eb2bcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
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: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25


I personally don't know that these upper bounds have become
a real issue since WG last call on 3280bis.

If they had, I'd expect a whole bunch of people to have said
so. They didn't, or I missed it.

So I think that we shouldn't change 3280bis, but would have
no problem with someone writing up an I-D that was a delta
on 3280bis that removed or reset those bounds. I reckon we'd
get that done in less than a year...maybe.

S.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email