Hi Steve, You are confusing two things, the current 2012 edition and the future edition 2016(?).
My mind is currently concerned with the final editing touch on X.509 (2012). No technical changes to PKI and PMI have been made since the 2008 edition. We have just updating the terminology to reflect what is currently used within the PKI community, like introducing the concept of relying party. We have made some clarification for new readers, etc. There are some proposals for extending X.509 for the next edition (probably to be published 2016). For example has a trust broker been proposed, but this is still just a suggestion for everyone to comment on. It will take another three years before such changes are incorporated assuming they are approved. You are very welcome to comment on that proposal and any other additions to be proposed. Regards, Erik -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie] Sendt: 23. september 2013 14:30 Til: t...@yaanatech.com Cc: Erik Andersen; wpkops@ietf.org Emne: Re: X.509 versions and proposed changes On 09/23/2013 06:22 AM, Tony Rutkowski wrote: > Hi Steve, > > It is helpful to have the complete > current set of X.509 materials. > These consist of the 2012 and > 2006 versions, the defect report, > and the current draft proposed > changes to the 2012 version. > > --tony The 2012 version doesn't have any mention of a "trust broker" but one of the word documents appears to be adding that to x.509. Two comments:- 1) that doesn't strike me as "editorial," even if there's no change to an ASN.1 module. 2) I don't think adding that to x.509 without getting a lot more input from people who develop PKI code is a good plan at all. I'm not aware that such input has been sought or given. But I doubt it'll have any impact if that is added other than to make it less likely folks will make use of the x.509 document. So fwiw, count this as a "please don't, but I don't really care if you do" comment from me. (And note "me" == Stephen, not "the IETF" - if some kind of liaison about this is helpful to SG17, we can ask to see what the IETF think about it.) S. _______________________________________________ wpkops mailing list wpkops@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops
