From nobody Thu Feb 11 13:57:06 2021 Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 17:00:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A403D320 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 16:57:00 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson To: LAMPS In-Reply-To: <87F0EF4C-205C-4D5D-9849-ADD13BC0FB83@vigilsec.com> References: <9D01B155-6BB8-4438-8FAA-149686B69B64@vigilsec.com> <7F1A001A-C6D4-4F6C-B2D6-1FA43E4900B8@akamai.com> <1D13C815-387F-4FAD-A71F-79C3DEC11A22@akamai.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 Archived-At: 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." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 21:57:05 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Russ Housley 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 behavi= or > 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 complet= e specification. That's why I call them *PKIX* certificates. =2D- Michael Richardson . o O ( IPv6 I=C3=B8T consulti= ng ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEbsyLEzg/qUTA43uogItw+93Q3WUFAmAlqCwACgkQgItw+93Q 3WUxeQf8DVGG7OmCoN3Gdx9VfA2x+A+aLKqVJyjnUf0IpSp01JUVUvhoxqfgvm3l DC9TrthOkV4YkpnudIbiPrz1A6pl6NlaAlE7cfEsaG72ziTyrelUGdaG6PJzXW1i 14nKmlrivLZXPO1OV+UeOFJR2FJrDicHVNnMIf4+nrcCo/CMesDYaw2VycBuFKNx 7rsVAJ4jUk95v9JdL5arwsEtm6M/LxGPQrwIWsMp0wsBo7f1xetalV+8gKojUYQA C7R6aUJaB+HsCnrb/G7n7rK3RmstARSuCuQslLhFn/myVU2Igqt+cV/rb+6R6NJb BIygLQNT6ffS4Eg923uYQ3yoIKBi5g== =cmkW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--