Subject: RE: Yes, and remove more of the alphabet from the PKIX soup

From: "Flanigan, Bill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 09:11:48 -0500

Hello Al/Eric,
 
    IMHO, CMC (needs a much-broader, descriptive name?) appears to be the
"logical successor" to CMP as well as the rest of the PKIX alphabet soup of
somewhat contradictory I-Ds/RFCs.  CMP now seems too narrowly focused and
not fully formed.  This is to be expected, since CMP drew on the experience
of only a small number of smart folks who had hands-on, post-pilot,
PKI-implementation experience (they were probably the only ones on the
planet at the time!).  CMC (or an updated, unified spec) offers the
opportunity for many more folks who now have had hands-on experience with
major PKI implementations (especially with the registration process and
directories) to contribute to a more mature, deconflicted, and homogeneous
protocol that can be implemented by many "flavors" of PKI using out-of-the
box components without glueware. 
 
Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: Al Arsenault [ mailto:[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]> ]
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 1999 1:21 PM
To: Eric Bomarsi; [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> 
Subject: RE: Yes, and remove more of the alphabet from the PKIX soup

Eric,

At 12:23 PM 2/11/99 -0500, Eric Bomarsi wrote:
>I am trying to understand the relationship between the various
>certificate enrollment protocols and came across this archived
>email thread. <snipped>
>
>Since then, CMP is going to RFC, CMMF seems to be
>going away, and CMC work continues. Correct?
>

Correct.

>So can someone with experience in each of these please
>summarize the merits of each?
>
>Is CMC a follow-on to CMP and intended to improve some
>deficiencies, or are they competing protocols.

 [snip] 

        Yes, the two protocols (CMP and CMC) are "competing" with one
another.  CMP was created first (it evolved out of the original PKIX-3
document); then CMC (which was originally CRS) was proposed as an
alternative by a group of people who didn't want to deal with the creation
of a new protocol.  Vendors generally choose one or the other to implement;
certain vendors (I'll let them speak for themselves) have said publically
that they're going to support CMC and never implement CMP; other vendors
have made similar commitments to CMP and seem to shun CMC.  I'm not aware of
anybody who has made a public commitment to support both, but there might be
somebody.

  [snip]                                                         Al
Arsenault

 [snip] .

---

From: Eric Bomarsi <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 13:17:13 -0500

Al and Bill:

Thanks, the chronology helps put things in perspective.

It sounds as though some view CMC as the next phase
certificate management protocol which will address
deficiencies in CMP and CRS.

I hope that means future CMP work is limited to incremental
fixes and improvements rather than competing with CMC
enhancements. Is this the case?

Still, if anyone experienced with both can summarize the
deficiencies that CMC is trying to address, it would be
appreciated.

Thanks in advance:
Eric Bomarsi