Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pkix-pi-03.txt

From: Peter Sylvester <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:02:43 +0100 (MET)

Hi, 

The proposal does not specify rules for Name Constraints of
this name form. 

The proposal extends the 'equivalence' of certificates
I am not sure whether it is necessary to allow/restrict the
usage of PIs, in particular global ones.

Peter
PS: This comment MUST NOT be regarded as a statement in favour or
against the concept of permanent identifiers.

---

From: "Tom Gindin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 18:02:26 -0500

Peter:

      If PI is adopted without a constraint format, it will not be the only
name form of GeneralName which does not have a NameConstraint format
specified.  RFC 2459 specifies NameConstraints for URI, DNS, DN, EMail, and
IP but not for X400, EDI, or OID (they mention two of the three at the
bottom of 4.2.1.11, along with OtherName).  The same thing is true of
new-part1.
      I should state, despite the above, that I am working on a constraint
format for PI's, which I hope to post shortly, but I am not certain whether
it is more appropriate as a NameConstraint or as an independent extension.

            Tom Gindin

Peter Sylvester <[email-masked]>@mail.imc.org on 02/18/2002
06:02:43 AM

Sent by:    [email-masked]

To:    [email-masked]
cc:
Subject:    Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pkix-pi-03.txt

Hi,

Peter