Steve,
Because of some family medical problems, I have not been able to devote the
time I would have liked to reading the most recent drafts. The fact that they
are sent as signed multipart MIME enclosures, which none of my available MIME
readers supports is a minor inconvenience, but one that has kept me from at
least scanning them as they came in. At this point, therefore, I don't have
either criticism or praise on the technical front. My concern was that the
specs seem to be evolving rather quickly, but somewhat in a vacuum by
comparison to the previous efforts.
Your explanation of the process was quite reasonable, and in fact I commend TIS
for putting their own money (as well as ARPAs) into a implementation reference,
whether or not it conforms to the latest concensus. My only concern was whether
the process was creating my problems than it might be solving, by leaving the
entire community up in the air as to the direction we were taking.
With respect to the general issues of trust models, addressing issues, etc.,
the passage of time plus some of the work I have been doing within the NADF and
the ABA group on certification authroties has convinced me that a pluralistic
approach is necessary to accommodate all of the various interests. I want to
address some of these issues in more detail in a separate message, but I wonder
whether you are up to speed on the various modifications and enhancements that
Warwick Ford has proposed for an enhanced X.509 certificate, and whether you
feel that those extensions would solve some of the problems that you have
previously identified.
Bob
--------------------------------
Robert R. Jueneman
Mgr., Secure Systems
Wireless and Secure Systems Laboratory
GTE Laboratories
40 Sylvan Road
Waltham, MA 02254
Internet: Jueneman(_at_)gte(_dot_)com
FAX: 1-617-466-2603
Voice: 1-617-466-2820 (rolls over to cellular and/or my house
if no answer -- have patience