Subject: Re: RFC 2538bis

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 01:12:27 +0100

Dear All:

I received several suggestions both on the list and privately, so I
have updated the document and submitted -01 to the IETF.  Meanwhile it
is available at:

http://josefsson.org/rfc2538bis/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2538bis.txt

I believe the document is ready for last call.

More stuff, like a diff against RFC 2538, is also available:

http://josefsson.org/rfc2538bis/

However, there are at least two matters that could use discussion:

* This version add the "indirect" types IPKIX, ISPKI and IPGP as
  suggested recently to the list by Ben.  I encourage the WG to
  consider this idea, so I can gauge consensus on it.  As far as I
  know, it has not been implemented yet.  I suspect this means we are
  on the PROPOSED-recycle rather than DRAFT track for 2538bis.  It
  does solve a major practical concern with RFC 2538, so I believe the
  idea has merit, but remain open to any criticism.

* The SPKI types.  The document reads:

   The SPKI type is reserved to indicate a certificate formated as to be
   specified by the IETF SPKI working group.

  The SPKI WG seem to have shut down.  RFC 2693 is EXPERIMENTAL, which
  means it could only be an information reference, if 2538bis is
  aiming for PROPOSED.  I suggest changing the above into 'The SPKI
  type is reserved for use with SPKI certificates', and drop the ISPKI
  type.  Then someone with sufficient SPKI expertise can update the
  document later on to say what is needed to use SPKI certificates
  inside CERT RRs.  I think this is better than me trying to guess
  what might work for SPKI people.

Thanks,
Simon

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>