Subject: [pkix] Comments on draft-cooper-pkix-rfc5280-clarifications

From: "Polk, William T." <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:59:44 -0400

Speaking as a wg participant, *not* as an AD...

I would like to see the wg adopt draft-cooper-pkix-rfc5280-clarifications as
a working group document.  This is a necessary step towards progressing 5280
to Draft Standard, and I think 5280 merits progression to Draft.

I would also like to say that I support adding BMPString as a MAY in the
encoding rules for explicitText field of the userNotice policy qualifier.

Tim

---

From: "David A. Cooper" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:45:53 -0700

All,

As I noted in my presentation at the PKIX WG session, the RFC 5280 
update document (draft-cooper-pkix-rfc5280-clarifications-00.txt) 
currently states:

       Conforming CAs SHOULD use the UTF8String encoding for
       explicitText, but MAY use VisibleString.  Conforming CAs
       MUST NOT encode explicitText as IA5String or BMPString.

There has been some support on the list 
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pkix/current/msg27191.html) for 
changing this to read:

       Conforming CAs SHOULD use the UTF8String encoding for
       explicitText, but MAY use VisibleString or BMPString.
       Conforming CAs MUST NOT encode explicitText as IA5String.

Since Monday's presentation I have received two comments (including 
Tim's) in favor of making this change.

Please let me know by April 8, 2010 if you either in favor of or opposed 
to making this change to the document.

Dave

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:26:13 -0400

At 10:45 AM -0700 3/25/10, David A. Cooper wrote:
>...
>Please let me know by April 8, 2010 if you either in favor of or 
>opposed to making this change to the document.
>
>Dave

I am in favor of adopting the text above.

Steve

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:49:29 -0400

This seems just fine to me.

(Of course, people that have followed this list for many years know that
I'd prefer a MUST NOT use policyQualifiers, but I'm accepting that I'm
in the rough on that one.)

Russ

---

From: Michael D'Errico <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:04:02 -0700

Though it probably doesn't matter, I too would like to see the
deprecation of policy qualifiers.

Mike

---

From: Stefan Santesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:00:50 -0700

I'm also in favor of making this change

/Stefan

On 10-03-25 1:26 PM, "Stephen Kent" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> pkix mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix

---

From: Stefan Santesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:02:08 -0700

I support this being adopted as pkix work item.

/Stefan

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:38:47 -0700

> I am in favor of adopting the text above.

+1

spt