On rereading a couple of additional comments are warranted on this matter.
> 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;
I have never said any such thing. There are (obviously) no limits on discussion
-- we can discuss anything we want to, including what v9 certs might look like
in the year 2050 and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
The only limits on discussion on a working group mailing list are set by the
chair, and we can always take any discussion the chair doesn't want on the list
to some other venue.
The issue here is, and has always been, whether or not v3 certs support should
be specifically part of the MIME/PEM documents. I have objected to this on
procedural grounds because, among other things, we're in last call on these
specifications, and as such we really should not be diddling with their
contents in major ways.
For at least the tenth time, if not more, I now support and have always
supported the adoption of v3 cert formats as part of PEM. I support making this
as requirement of being a conformant PEM implementation. I just don't want to
do this as part of the MIME/PEM specifications.
and that 1422 would
have to be revised and repositioned in the process to facilitate its
eventual use.
As I have said before, RFC1422 needs to be either revised or amended if support
for v3 certs is going to be required in comformant implementations.
Ned