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

"Kemp, David P." <DPKemp@missi.ncsc.mil> Wed, 10 October 2007 14:19 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 1IfcP1-0001RI-T9 for pkix-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:19:11 -0400
Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IfcOs-0003HY-NB for pkix-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:19:07 -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 l9ADOJm3099897 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 10 Oct 2007 06:24:19 -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 l9ADOJiI099896; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 06:24:19 -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 stingray.missi.ncsc.mil (stingray.missi.ncsc.mil [144.51.50.20]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l9ADOIB2099890 for <ietf-pkix@imc.org>; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 06:24:19 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from DPKemp@missi.ncsc.mil)
Received: from Cerberus.missi.ncsc.mil (cerberus.missi.ncsc.mil [144.51.51.8]) by stingray.missi.ncsc.mil with SMTP id l9ADOI1K002624 for <ietf-pkix@imc.org>; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:24:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from 144.51.60.33 by Cerberus.missi.ncsc.mil (InterScan VirusWall 6); Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:24:18 -0400
Received: from EXCH.missi.ncsc.mil ([144.51.60.19]) by antigone.missi.ncsc.mil with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:24:18 -0400
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Subject: RE: New Liaison Statement, "Liaison to IETF on the removal of upper bound in X.509"
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:24:17 -0400
Message-ID: <FA998122A677CF4390C1E291BFCF598908498733@EXCH.missi.ncsc.mil>
In-Reply-To: <470C4E85.4010802@cs.tcd.ie>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: New Liaison Statement, "Liaison to IETF on the removal of upper bound in X.509"
Thread-Index: AcgK8jWFbJznGABKS8+PbtfKjjVqqgATS/6A
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> <470C4E85.4010802@cs.tcd.ie>
From: "Kemp, David P." <DPKemp@missi.ncsc.mil>
To: <ietf-pkix@imc.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Oct 2007 13:24:18.0026 (UTC) FILETIME=[DC33E4A0:01C80B40]
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: : ISVW-6.0.0.1396-3.6.0.1039-15474003
X-TM-AS-Result: : Yes--21.439400-0-31-1
X-TM-AS-Category-Info: : 31:0.000000
X-TM-AS-MatchedID: : =?us-ascii?B?MTUwNTY3LTcwMTIzNi03MDg2?= =?us-ascii?B?NTUtNzA0MzQyLTcwNjU2MS03MDY5ODQtNzAwNzI2LTcxMTYxMi03?= =?us-ascii?B?MDQzNTEtNzA1NjY5LTcwNDUwNi03MDAyNjQtNzAxNTc2LTcwMjkz?= =?us-ascii?B?MS0zMDAwMTUtMTM5MDA2LTcwMDQ3My03MDExNzUtNzA0NDI1LTcw?= =?us-ascii?B?MDYwNC03MDU4NjEtNzA2MzU0LTcwMzgzMS03MDQwNDktNzA2MDQx?= =?us-ascii?B?LTcwMTI5OC03MDkyOTEtNzAzNzQ3LTcwNDQzMC03MDM5NjUtMTA2?= =?us-ascii?B?NDIwLTcwMDE2My03MDIyMTYtNzA1NDUwLTcwMDEwNC03MDIxOTIt?= =?us-ascii?B?MTg4MDE5LTE0ODAzOS0xNDgwNTA=?=
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by balder-227.proper.com id l9ADOJB2099891
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: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d

I agree that we shouldn't change 3280bis, particularly since
it is recycling as a Proposed Standard.  The next I-D series
leading to Draft Standard is plenty of time to make
this change.

At that time, I'd suggest retaining upper bounds as
informational with accompanying text stating that consumers
SHOULD accept data objects of unspecified size and that
producers MAY conform to the informational upper bounds
for legacy interoperability.

Dave


-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 12:01 AM
To: Steven Legg
Cc: Kemp, David P.; ietf-pkix@imc.org
Subject: Re: New Liaison Statement, "Liaison to IETF on the removal of
upper bound in X.509"


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.