Subject: RE: charter revisions

From: "Michael Myers" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 10:34:10 -0700

All,

I agree with Stephen Farrell and Steve Hanna that logotypes are out of
scope.  These needs are better addressed by other forums.  Let's focus the
WG's remaining energy on resolving DPV/DPD issues.

Mike

> On Thursday, August 30, 2001 2:35 AM Stephen Farrell wrote in part:
> . . .
> Steve (K),
>
> I'd have to agree with Steve H, though maybe not as strongly.
> My suggestion would be to limit the additional items to the
> dpd/dpv.

> On  Wednesday, August 29, 2001 2:01 PM Steve Hanna wrote in part:
>
> . . . I don't think PKIX should do any work on the
> logotype extension. I know that there is a demand for this from
> marketing folks, but I don't believe that we should standardize it
> unless it can be used securely. This does not seem possible.

---

From: Rich Salz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 15:55:36 -0400

Is the CA processing for adding a logo extension any different from
adding any other extension?  I don't see how/why.

Can't this work item be accomplished just by an RFC that assigns OID's
to some popular image formats?

	/r$

-- 
Zolera Systems, Your Key to Online Integrity
Securing Web services: XML, SOAP, Dig-sig, Encryption
http://www.zolera.com

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 09:56:11 -0400

>to some popular image formats?

Although we have yet to decide how (or maybe even whether) to address 
this problem, it seems likely that more is needed than just an OID 
for an image, e.g., because we may not want to carry the image in the 
cert, but rather have a pointer to the image.

Steve