On 2025-10-10, at 20:09, somebody wrote:
> 
> these are NOT PKIX

I have no idea what it means for something to “be” PKIX.
The mind boggles.

We actually have a definition of PKIX [1]:

[1]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4949#page-225

   $ PKIX
      1a. (I) A contraction of "Public-Key Infrastructure (X.509)", the
      name of the IETF working group that is specifying an architecture
      [R3280] and set of protocols [R4210] to provide X.509-based PKI
      services for the Internet.

      1b. (I) A collective name for that Internet PKI architecture and
      associated set of protocols.

      Tutorial: The goal of PKIX is to facilitate the use of X.509
      public-key certificates in multiple Internet applications and to
      promote interoperability between different implementations that
      use those certificates. The resulting PKI is intended to provide a
      framework that supports a range of trust and hierarchy
      environments and a range of usage environments. PKIX specifies (a)
      profiles of the v3 X.509 public-key certificate standards and the
      v2 X.509 CRL standards for the Internet, (b) operational protocols
      used by relying parties to obtain information such as certificates
      or certificate status, (c) management protocols used by system
      entities to exchange information needed for proper management of
      the PKI, and (d) information about certificate policies and CPSs,
      covering the areas of PKI security not directly addressed in the
      rest of PKIX.

Clearly, C509 is not the name of the working group that has banged X.509 into 
shape.  So “is” doesn’t apply to 1.a.

What about 1.b: “associated set of protocols”.
C509 is a protocol in the now widely agreed sense that data formats are 
protocols.
How about “associated”?
Whatever that may be in your mind; does a protocol need to be used all over the 
PKI to be in the “associated set of protocols”?
Is JSON “associated” with JWT?  ASCII?  Unicode?  RFC 4648?
[Please don’t answer [2].]
Is that 1.b question anything that needs to be discussed for standardization?

Somebody off-list suggested using ChatGPT more.
Maybe we should ask it how many angels can dance on a pinhead.
That will save time writing mail messages and at least will be more 
entertaining than this part of the discussion.
Otherwise, tasty off-topic chunks here!

Grüße, Carsten

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question
_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to