IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lamps] Proposed recharter text

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 11 February 2021 21:57 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4A7A3A0C9F for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 13:57:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wlYx5TA7vfjO for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 13:57:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41C1C3A0C98 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 13:57:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B237838A26 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 17:00:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 1OpF6cG45oX8 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 17:00:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF57A38A25 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 17:00:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A403D320 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 16:57:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: LAMPS <spasm@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <87F0EF4C-205C-4D5D-9849-ADD13BC0FB83@vigilsec.com>
References: <DM6PR11MB43808FA7D74229A5997965649FBA9@DM6PR11MB4380.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <9D01B155-6BB8-4438-8FAA-149686B69B64@vigilsec.com> <A7402F4B-33D3-4064-9E14-345B1303B1FD@akamai.com> <F94F3EAD-30C7-4B39-A00F-600234E120ED@vigilsec.com> <7F1A001A-C6D4-4F6C-B2D6-1FA43E4900B8@akamai.com> <CAErg=HH9j3duJnS8PQvrHef9hw8qdck4fPyc=iB1ENyPrReW=g@mail.gmail.com> <1D13C815-387F-4FAD-A71F-79C3DEC11A22@akamai.com> <CAErg=HGBzdG2a8GSbcYV5b3O1JW4Dn_tQ68MPUojPAtv8m4E4Q@mail.gmail.com> <87F0EF4C-205C-4D5D-9849-ADD13BC0FB83@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 16:57:00 -0500
Message-ID: <7215.1613080620@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/ZzODymSSdZeePqCeifbnqeTV93M>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Proposed recharter text
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is a venue for discussion of doing Some Pkix And SMime \(spasm\) work." <spasm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spasm/>
List-Post: <mailto:spasm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 21:57:05 -0000

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
    > ago, but implementers did not want to change.  In addition, RFC 5280 is
    > a profile of X.509, so RFC 5280 should not specify a different behavior
    > than X.509.  I continue to believe that a different OID should be used
    > if a different behavior is desired.

I disagree. "X.509" is dead as a document/protocol/process.
RFC5280 rules, and we should no longer consider it a profile, but a complete specification.
That's why I call them *PKIX* certificates.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email