Subject: RE: roadmap

From: [email-masked] (Peter Gutmann)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 04:27:58 +1200 (NZST)

"Michael Myers" <[email-masked]> writes:

>v2's status mostly tracks that of the DPV and DPD requirements, which have
>only recently settled down after about a year's worth of effort.  As I said
>before, it didn't make much sense to track that moving target with incremental
>I-Ds.  I once had three separate I-Ds but that got so hard to manage and work
>due to syntatic and editorial overlap (not to mention review) that I put them
>all in one.  I prefer to keep that structure together while we see how things
>shake out re: DPV/DPD.  Since 2560bis is pretty well on its way, I think we
>should let that go forward cleanly rather than force a reset due to adding new
>syntax.

The problem with this is that it ties a small and very trivial change to 2560
(a few more IDs added to the CHOICE) to a complex, controversial, and likely-
to-take-ages-to-sort-out new protocol (DPV/DPD), which more or less dooms the
small change to 2560 to a completion date of about 2005 or so.  Is it possible
to break out the minor-2560-tweaks (rather than the completely new protocol
bits) into a small draft of its own?  There's probably not more than a page of
text in there (not counting the usual boilerplate).

Peter.

---

From: "Michael Myers" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:42:47 -0700

Peter,

That's certainly a rational proposal and one well-founded by
empirical evidence:  break out the v2-ness of v2, which is
essentially the cert id stuff, from the proposed definition of
extensions that support DPV and DPD.  I'll have a chat with my
co-authors on this.

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Gutmann [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 9:28 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: roadmap
>
>