Subject: SV: Rename Qualified Certificates?

From: Hans Nilsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 07:36:46 +0200

Stefan,

Since you sound as if you want to close this issue, I would like to repeat
my initial objection to the name, and also to the new Qualified Certificate
Profile. In my dictionary, qualified is defined as follows:

1.	To describe by enumerating the characteristics or qualities of;
characterize.
2.	To make competent or eligible for an office, a position, or a task.
3.	a. To declare competent or capable; certify. b. To make legally
capable; license.
4.	To modify, limit, or restrict, as by giving exceptions.

So the word signifies that a certificate has been limited or restricted in
some way. But it does not say why or for what purpose. If the reader has not
also read the EU Directive on Electronic Signatures (and most people have
not), he has no idea what qualified means in this context.

I have two alternative proposals:

- Identity certificate (profile): This is after all what the specification
is mostly about
- Signature certificate (profile): This is what the certificate is primarily
to be used for (because for signatures you need an unmistakable identity)

I also would like to hear Steve's opinion on this. Maybe we can make a
strawpoll (although it pollutes the list even more than this discussion :-)

Hans Nilsson

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 14:53:49 -0400

Hans,

I think the use of "qualified" here can be clarified adequately by
providing a pointer to the EU documents motivating this profile.  I think
that such language has been included, and thus don;t see this as a major
problem.  Also, changing the name of the document to "Qualified Identity
Certificate Profile" has been suggested, and that's fine with me too.  I'll
rely on Stefan to make sure appropriate langauge is contained in the
abstract of the I-D to minimize confusion.

Steve