Subject: RE: WG last call for draft-ietf-pkix-qc-o3.txt

From: Anders Rundgren <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 17:19:48 +0100

Interesting timing of a last call :-)

I agree that the things that have been discussed recently are too late to add
without really screwing up the whole project.

I though really lack some rules for a QUALIFIED CA like

DN interpretation/unmistakable identity that should be DECLARED
Naming domain that should be DECLARED
The possibility to compare certs from a certain CA that should be DECLARED

Note: This would not break anything, just improve security, usability and interoperability.

Anders

----------
From:  Stephen Kent [SMTP:[email-masked]]
Sent:  Tuesday, February 22, 2000 04:00
To:  [email-masked]
Subject:  WG last call for draft-ietf-pkix-qc-o3.txt

I am initiating a 2 week last call on the Internet Draft on Qualified 
Certificates, as indicated in the subject line of this message.

I realize that there is some continuing debate on issues of what 
parts of a DN should be considered essential for uniquely identifying 
the Subject of a certificate. However, this is a broader issue, not 
restricted to QCs, and I expect that it will not be resolved quickly. 
Since the QC document have evolved through a series of drafts and the 
editor has made appropriate changes reflecting WG consensus at each 
stage, it is appropriate to initiate last call at this time.

Steve Kent
PKIX WG Co-chair

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:43:42 -0500

Anders,

>--- Message on the SEIS mailing list ([email-masked])
>

Stefan asked me to initiate the last call 2 weeks ago, but travel and 
forgetfulness on my part delayed the message.

Steve