Subject: [pkix] Fwd: Re: 2560bis

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 13:45:59 -0400

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [pkix] 2560bis
Date: 	Tue, 31 Jul 2012 18:42:17 -0700
From: 	Michael Myers <[email-masked]>
To: 	pkix PKIX <[email-masked]>
CC: 	Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>, Stefan Santesson <[email-masked]>, 
"Polk, William T." <[email-masked]>

Vote:  I change my vote to option A.

Notice:  I assume I'm writing to just the three of you since I still
can't get a fix on why my posts to PKIX bounce.  I am at this very
moment working with my ISP on the issue. But to the extent you are
consolidating WG positions for a consensus on a path forward, there's
mine.

Essay:  The key that signs the response need not be the key that
signed the cert.  That capability MUST be maintained to enable an
effective distribution of authority.  I know well the original
language is at times ambiguous, the reasons for which have likely been
overcome by events.

Mike