Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pkix-okid-00.txt

From: Paul Hoffman / VPNC <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 10:47:05 -0800

At 1:22 PM -0500 1/30/02, Al Arsenault wrote:
>     Do you (or Steve K., Russ or Stephen F. for that matter) know of any IPR
>issues with this?  In the WAP Forum, Entrust claimed that they had IPR (a
>patent application on file in the US) that covered this sort of thing.

I don't have any direct knowledge of any IPR. If Entrust has a patent 
or an application that might affect this, Carlisle Adams might be the 
best person to ask.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: [email-masked] (Peter Gutmann)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:55:17 +1300 (NZDT)

Denis Pinkas <[email-masked]> writes:

>So the document should be changed to consider the hash of the certificate
>instead of only the hash of the public key (and of the algorithm identifier).
>
>If we do so, then the "protocol" will also be usable for any type of
>certificate, not only self-signed certificates.

Actually I think the main problem with this draft (which others have also
alluded to indirectly) is that it's trying to do two things at once: Identify
certs using a hash, and provide a way of encoding binary values as user-
friendly keys.  I think it'd be better to split the two, create a universal
user-friendly key-encoding RFC and then move the identifying-certs bit
elsewhere.  The key-encoding is useful in lots of other places, for example
I've been using it with CMP for enrolment details.

Peter.