RE: Charter Revision

[Carlisle Adams <[e-mail]>]

Hi Phill,

> ----------
> From: 	Phillip M Hallam-Baker[SMTP:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 	Tuesday, June 22, 1999 10:57 AM
> To: 	Pawling, John; [e-mail]
> Subject: 	RE: Charter Revision
> 
> > 1) There is significant work being done in the ISO committees (i.e.
> FPDAM)
> > that will impact the X.509 Attribute Certificate syntax.  
> > Recommend that we
> > add the following text to the charter: "CMS imports the Attribute
> > Certificate syntax from X.509.  If the AC syntax is changed (as is
> > expected), then CMS will be enhanced to import the revised syntax."
> 
> This is definitely NOT a topic for S/MIME.
> 
> In the first place CMS should be importing semantics from PKIX, not
> X.509. 
 
Fair enough.  Note, however, that John did not suggest importing semantics
from X.509; he suggested importing syntax from X.509, which is the correct
thing to do.  This should lead to no conflict with what PKIX is doing
(recall what the "X" in PKIX stands for...).

> The approach S/MIME should take is to look to see what _functionality_
> it wants to add to S/MIME to solve _problems_. Simply adding technology
> for the sake of it is a very bad move.
> 
> The proper place to address attribute certificates would be either
> PKIX or more likely a new group focussed on some _use_ of attribute
> certificates. 
 
As John has pointed out, it has been envisioned from the start of the S/MIME
Working Group that Attribute Certificates might be the technology that makes
labeling of e-mail messages useful.  So what you're asking for above may be
precisely the reason that it is valuable to include the text that John
suggested...

Carlisle.