--On Thursday, 21 February, 2008 12:57 -0500 Russ Housley
<housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com> wrote:
Timing did not allow this approach. Registration for this
meeting is being handled by AMS, our new Secretariat vendor.
However, we needed to open registration for this meeting
before ietf.org was moved from the old Secretariat vendor to
the new one. This approach seemed like the best way to deal
with the transition.
Russ,
Taking this as a given, can we be assured that future meetings
will be handled exclusively from ietf.org? If so, then I think
we should, to the extent possible, write the issues with the
amsl.com certification off as a transition issue and move on.
If not, I would think that this discussion ought to expand into
examining the question of whether the example IETF sets ought to
involve certificate authorities and types that actually verify
an organization's identity and status, not just the ability to
obtain a domain name and set up a web site.
john
At 12:05 PM 2/21/2008, SM wrote:
At 07:22 21-02-2008, Eric Rescorla wrote:
So, what puzzles me here is:
Why is this going to amsl.com at all? It seems extremely
desirable to have a set of names and credentials that point
only to *ietf.org, both to keep interfaces consistent and
to avoid issues with referential integrity in future
transitions.
Good question. It would have been better to have the
registration site under *.ietf.org instead of being directed
to a third-party site. It may inspire more confidence.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf