Subject: RE: What happened to the OCSPv2 draft?

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:04:05 -0700

> Extensions can dramatically alter the semantics, functionality, and 
> security of a base protocol or data structure.

Agreed, that is why I don't want random extensions that do not have
vendor or developer support to be accorded the same status as the 
PKIX profile that does have vendor and developer support.

> Todd's most recent effort was directed at removing me as chair of the 
> PKIX WG, by persuading someone to take my place, or create a new WG 
> for which I was not the chair, or to persuade the IESG or IAB that 
> PKIX was broken and needed to be fixed, and then, ultimately, to 
> convince the IAB & IESG that the IETF was broken and needed to be 
> fixed.

And you foiled the plot by putting a fake timestamp on the moment 
at which the IESG and IAB were convinced?

		Phill

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:23:48 -0400

>PKIX profile that does have vendor and developer support.

I think we basically agree, expect that I would phrase it in terms of 
having the same WG approve the extensions as approved the original 
document.

>at which the IESG and IAB were convinced?

I have no comment on that heinous accusation at this time, or at that 
other time, whenever it was, or may yet be, or ....

Steve