At 3:28 PM -0700 8/9/07, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Greetings again. draft-wallace-ta-mgmt-problem-statement-01.txt does
a good job of listing the problems we need to deal with, but some
parts use PKIX language in places they don't need to. It's fine if
these places are marked off with "for example, in PKIX ...", but in
many places that is not included.
To help make it clearer that the requirements are for management of
all public keys, I propose that the following topics be removed or
delimited as PKIXy examples:
- Name constraints
- Key usage
- Expiration dates of keys
- Possibly others that I have missed
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
Paul,
During the IETF meeting I spoke with several folks about the question
of the scope of the TAM effort. Derek Atkins said that he didn't see
OPGP as benefiting from this work. I think Mike St' Johns didn't
view DNSSEC as a beneficiary either. So, maybe we're trying too hard
to make this effort generic, when the primary constituency is
X.509-centric, at least for now.
Steve
