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

[Tadahiko Ito <[e-mail]>]

I support adoption.

I may have misunderstood,

but this protocol allow a PQ Cert to be Bonded to an already issued
classical Cert.

Even if PQ Cert happen to be weak sometime after issuance, we can continue
to use classical cert,

during revocation of that PQ cert, and issuance of another PQ cert (unlike
composite cert), and reduce operational spike.

I believe that kind of operation would help operator for large scale system.



Regards Tadahiko Ito

2023年1月6日(金) 8:01 Russ Housley <[e-mail]>:

> 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]> wrote:
> >
> > There has been some discussion of
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-becker-guthrie-cert-binding-for-multi-auth/.
> 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]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm
>