Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-pkix-ecc-subpubkeyinfo-01.txt

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:30:02 -0500

The second to last paragraph in Section 3 says:

    If the EE certificate keyUsage extension asserts keyAgreement then it
    MAY assert either encipherOnly or decipherOnly.  However, this
    specification RECOMMENDS that if cRLSign is present, then
    keyAgreement, encipherOnly, and decipherOnly SHOULD NOT be present.

I think the second sentence does not seem to fit here.  I think it 
should be deleted.

Russ

---

From: "Turner, Sean P." <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:58:58 -0500

Good catch. When I updated the key usage list I didn't remove the sentence.
I'll post an updated draft.

spt

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] 
>[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Russ Housley
>Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 5:30 PM
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-pkix-ecc-subpubkeyinfo-01.txt
>
>
>I think the second sentence does not seem to fit here.  I 
>think it should be deleted.
>
>Russ
>

---

From: "Turner, Sean P." <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:58:58 -0500

spt

---

From: "Turner, Sean P." <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:58:58 -0500

spt

---

From: "Turner, Sean P." <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:58:58 -0500

spt