Subject: RE: Logotypes in certificates

From: Stefan Santesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 01:01:09 +0100

Well,

I didn't really suggest inclusion in son of rfc 2459. It was mora like a 
question.

Personally I think it could be done in it's own document and maybe merged 
later into others.

I have negative feelings about the approach to just point to a signed logo, 
but lets discuss it openly.

I think I would like to have the logotype signed by the certificate and I 
suggest that you should not be allowed to update or change any information 
signed and identified by a certificate. If you have an physical ID-card, 
any logotypes are fixed. The present logotypes reflects the logotypes valid 
at the time of issuance.

/Stefan

At 13:11 2001-03-17 -0800, David Cross wrote:
>Sounds like a reasonable suggestion.  Still, I would not want this in
>son-of-RFC2459.
>
>David B. Cross
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Michael Zolotarev [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 7:09 PM
>To: David Cross; Stefan Santesson; [email-masked]
>Subject: RE: Logotypes in certificates
>
>
>Probably a better alternative to including a logotype into a certificate
>would be to include a reference to a [signed] logotype. As an extension,
>containing a uri of a logotype which is stored somewhere. The drawback
>is that it requires the verifier to be connected, obviously. But
>certificate verification normally assumes that you are connected. The
>size of a logotype won't matter much.
>
>Naturally, a logotype should be signed by the same entity which issued
>the certificate which contains the reference to the logotype. it also
>allows flexible update of logotype if necessary, should a change be made
>within validity period of the certificate (i.e. a new photo required
>because I've grown a bead).
>
>Michael

---

From: Rich Salz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 11:16:23 -0500

I don't understand the need.  Why is it important to brand a data
structure that *nobody ever looks at without a computer controlling the
display*?

Whatever.  Define some extension write it up and submit your own RFc.
	/r$