Subject: proposed text for attributes

From: Sharon Boeyen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 07:59:42 -0400

Santosh and I prefer the use of 'realm'. Scope, although not as bad as
domain, also has some other meanings associated with it in the PKI area.

Unless there are any other objections to the wording, I'll get the draft
revised with this wording and submitted by Monday. I also will be submitting
a new version of the LDAPv2 protocol profile, but this is only because the
current draft expires this month. There are no changes to it and it passed
last call back in January (for those who weren't following this list at that
time, the IESG would not allow it to progress to RFC without this
accompanying schema).

Sharon

------------------
Sharon Boeyen                  
Entrust Technologies

mailto:[email-masked]  Tel: (613) 247-3181 
http://www.entrust.com            Fax: (613) 247-3690

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:39:16 -0700

>revised with this wording and submitted by Monday. 

I'd like to echo David Kurn's concern that the wording with respect to the
cACertificate attribute of a CA's directory entry. If you don't define
"realm",
then there doesn't seem much point to saying that "some things that person
accessing the directory cannot determine will appear in the cACertificate
attribute". Why is that still in the spec if it's up to local policy to decide
what to put there?

Maybe better wording would be "The cACertificate attribute of a CA's directory
entry may be populated with certificates defined by local policy" and leave
the
rest of the paragraph out.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium