At 1:20 AM +0300 8/22/07, Yoav Nir wrote:
Two comments:
1. "Supporting multiple trust anchor administrators, such as is
typical for home users" - I would not say that the typical home
user has multiple TAAs. From the discussion here it's not even clear
if there is a real case for multiple TAAs. I would just drop
everything after the comma.
Agree. The "home users" bit still sticks out. There are many
scenarios for multiple trust anchor administrators. I brought up a
few in Chicago, and people at the mic give more. The above scope item
might instead read:
- Supporting multiple trust anchor administrators, each of whom is independent
2. I suggest we add to the list of deliverables a document (TBD if
it should be standards track, informational or BCP) that specifies
the operations of a trust anchor store. I think all the debate here
shows that this is a large enough can of worms to warrant a separate
document, rather than including a section in the protocol document.
Fully disagree. That is not an interoperability issue. Having said
that, I think it is fine for someone to do that as an individual
submission.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
