Subject: Re: Cautionary Period Straw Poll

From: "Yee, Peter" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:06:26 -0800

I feel that a cautionary period is NOT something for PKIX
DPV protocols.

					-Peter Yee

---

From: "Sean P. Turner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 07:23:13 -0500

I believe that DPV protocols developed by the PKIX working group ought not
include support for a cautionary period.

I believe this because of the reasons stated by Ambarish (1/11/2002 at 12:48),
Russ (1/16/2002 at 9:24), Yuriy (in this thread), Rich (in this thread), and Al
(in this thread).

spt

---

From: "Housley, Russ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 13:07:04 -0500

I believe that DPV protocols developed by the PKIX working group
ought not include support for a cautionary period.

Russ

---

From: "Tom Gindin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 16:29:07 -0500

I believe that DPV protocols developed by the PKIX working group
ought not to include support for a cautionary period.

      I believe this because I believe that DSV is the proper place for
this valuable feature, which applies to object signatures rather than to
certificates.

            Tom Gindin

---

From: Ambarish Malpani <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 20:59:45 -0800

I belive that DPV shouldn't include support for cautionary
period.

Ambarish

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ambarish Malpani
Architect                                                650.567.5457
ValiCert, Inc.                                  [email-masked]
339 N. Bernardo Ave.                          http://www.valicert.com
Mountain View, CA 94043

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Housley, Russ [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 10:07 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Cautionary Period Straw Poll
> 
> 
>