>From: Ned Freed <NED(_at_)INNOSOFT(_dot_)COM>
>Subject: Re: X.509 v3 support
>Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 11:41:41 -0800 (PST)
>> corrigenda is ratified. as, according to Galvin, MIME/PEM is equivalent
>> to Classic PEM, the procedures are also available to MIME/PEM
>> implementations, and must therefore be implemented by complete and
conformatn
>> implementations
>
>Well, for starters, I asserted nothing of the sort. I have never said a
single
>word on the issue of what RFC1422 does or doesn't requirement for its
>underlying certificate formats. My comments in this context have been
entirely
>directed at the procedural issues that arise when you try to do IETF work
>based on ISO standards, and where such work should be done.
You have said it is procedurally wrong for detailed discussion to be
had of v3 certificates wrt MIME/PEM (and PEM), as there is the matter
of recognition of draft work of other stds bodies; and that 1422 would
have to be revised and repositioned in the process to facilitate its
eventual use. Well, shortly the corrigendum will be through the ISO
process, and given PEM explicitely allows the use of 1992 certificates
(which includes all recognised and corrected defects) we have the
additional resources we require to solve some of the deployment
problems the many implementors on this list have exchanged info about
for the last 3 or more years.
There is no nonsense about waiting 12 months, etc. v3 is available
formally within the IETF in 89 days time. you have already admitted
that itll take the IESG 4-6 months to process MIME/PEM; the many
implementors have indicated v3 is wanted immediately upon availability;
so I find your dogmatic proceduralism obstructive.
But thanks for the indicators about the forms of proceeding within the
local procedures. I agree its correct to wait for the formal
ratification of the defect and corrigendum process to complete before
proceeding.
Try to calm down, Ned,
Peter.