Subject: Re: draft meeting minutes, please comment

From: Nada Kapidzic Cicovic <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 13:51:58 +0200

>...

Hi Steve,

Just one quick comment:

>Status of RFC 2459bis- Russ Housley (RSA Labs)
>         Fixed path length computation. Fix "who can issue CRLs" problem 
> by allowing a CA certificate to contain EITHER the KeyCertSign OR cRLSign 
> bits.

My understanding of the explanation was "a certificate with either 
keyCertSign bit on, or cRLSign bit on, or BOTH". The above sentence implies 
that the presence of keyCertSign bit excludes the presence of cRLSign bit, 
and vice versa.

Nada

...

---

From: "Michael Myers" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:42:26 -0700

All,

We're going to take the certHash option out of ReqCert for the -03 rev.
Anyone who cares for it, now's the time to speak up.

Mike

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:36:35 -0400

At 1:51 PM +0200 4/2/01, Nada Kapidzic Cicovic wrote:
>>         Fixed path length computation. Fix "who can issue CRLs" 
>>problem by allowing a CA certificate to contain EITHER the 
>>KeyCertSign OR cRLSign bits.
>
>keyCertSign bit on, or cRLSign bit on, or BOTH". The above sentence 
>implies that the presence of keyCertSign bit excludes the presence 
>of cRLSign bit, and vice versa.

There is some ambiguity in the Englsih language re expressing 
inclusive vs. exclusive OR.  My text was intended to connote the 
former, and it is proper to do so in that fashion, but I agree that 
it is less confusing to include the "BOTH" and avoid any possible 
confusion.  I'll make that change, plus a few others that have been 
submitted privately, and send in the minutes today.

Steve