Re: [lamps] Call for adoption of draft-becker-guthrie-cert-binding-for-multi-auth-02

[Carl Wallace <[e-mail]>]

FWIW, I was not addressing global uniqueness (that was discussed a fair bit during previous discussion of this draft and is a different can of worms). I was noting lack of uniqueness for a given person, possibly even within the same organization. 

On 1/11/23, 1:28 PM, "Spasm on behalf of Santosh Chokhani" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


I am not a fan of what us being proposed, but I support adoption.


To answer Carl, I have heard from various folks in various WGs that names are NOT globally unique. In light of that, having the extension is a good thing.


The proposal is a solution during the transition period. 


The reason I am lukewarm on it is that it brings in two or more path development and validation into play as opposed to single certificate (hybrid or composite).


-----Original Message-----
From: Spasm [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Tomofumi Okubo
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2023 12:52 PM
To: Russ Housley <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; LAMPS <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Call for adoption of draft-becker-guthrie-cert-binding-for-multi-auth-02


I believe there are use cases for this model and I support the adoption of this draft.
Thanks and best regards,
Tomofumi


-----Original Message-----
From: Spasm <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Russ Housley
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 3:02 PM
To: LAMPS <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [lamps] Call for adoption of draft-becker-guthrie-cert-binding-for-multi-auth-02


Do the changes that were made in -02 of the Internet-Draft resolve the concerns that were previously raised?


On behalf of the LAMPS WG Chairs,
Russ




> On Sep 15, 2022, at 11:44 AM, Russ Housley <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> There has been some discussion of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-becker-guthrie-cert-binding-for-multi-auth/. During <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-becker-guthrie-cert-binding-for-multi-auth/.&nbsp;&nbsp;During> the discussion at IETF 114, we agree to have a call for adoption of this document.
> 
> Should the LAMPS WG adopt “Related Certificates for Use in Multiple Authentications within a Protocol” indraft-becker-guthrie-cert-binding-for-multi-auth-01?
> 
> Please reply to this message by Friday, 30 September 2022 to voice your support or opposition to adoption.
> 
> On behalf of the LAMPS WG Chairs,
> Russ
> 


_______________________________________________
Spasm mailing list
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>
_______________________________________________
Spasm mailing list
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>


_______________________________________________
Spasm mailing list
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>