Subject: Re: draft-ietf-pkix-rfc3770bis-01: key usage extension

From: Peter Sylvester <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:20:48 +0200 (MEST)

> 
> Peter:
> 
> You are the one that complained that there was not discussion of the key 
> usage extension.  I am happy to delete the whole paragraph ... you are the 
> one who asked for the topic to be covered.

Your name is not Bismarck, and this is not the Emser Depesche. :-)

  I have 'remarked' that there was no discussion of keyUsage in your text.

  You have introduced a restriction that was not in 3370. 

  Since both versions of your proposals seem wrong to me I had already
proposed to delete the second half of the sentence that talks about
keyusages of crlsign or keyCertSign.  

I also had asked whether it is true that 'Currently no EAP methods require
keyCertSign or crlSign'. I have the feeling that this is what you wanted
to express. 

> How about this:
> 
>     If a certificate contains a key usage extension, the KeyUsage bits
>     that are needed depends on the EAP method that is employed.
> 
> Russ

This text is what I had proposed to you yesterday in a reponse that 
didn't went to the list since you did not answered the question above
(unless I have missed it). 

I can live with an with that.

Peter

---

From: Peter Sylvester <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:30:22 +0200 (MEST)

in addition to what I just said.
It seems that some mail from me got lost somewhere.