Re: [lamps] Call for adoption for draft-ito-documentsigning-eku

[Ryan Sleevi <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 4:57 PM Russ Housley <[e-mail]> wrote:

> DKG:
>
> I suppose it does allow many OIDs to be assigned.  I was trying to come up
> with a way to allow simple documents that assign an OID and achieve WG
> consensus to move along without too much administrative overhead.


Is that the goal of LAMPS? That is, such generic assignment seems to run
counter to the (present) charter of being Limited, with known
constituencies interested in real deployment with at least one sufficiently
well-specified approach. The generic OID assignment seems to run counter to
that, and reintroduce the issues of PKIX.

Assigning new OIDs equally seems to run counter to simplify clarify
existing PKIX and S/MIME WG documents; typically, a new OID would be used
to describe new functionality, rather than clarify existing.

That's not to say we can't charter to become PKIX 2.0, if that's the
explicit goal, but it does seem to be a shift from a closed set to a very
open set, as flagged by DKG.

While Michael mentions wanting to avoid stopping work every 4 weeks for a
recharter, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention my goal is to ensure we don't
become PKIX 2.0 where we continue to add to the ever growing, ever
unnecessary, ever uninteroperable set of features that we call PKIX, and I
worry this language would.