Re: Issue with the requirements document: PKIX-centric terminology

[Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Steve,

You seem to prefer that this work be scoped so as to be limited
to x.509 TAs only.

I'm just wondering if you see any specific benefit to that, or
if its just that you've not seen specific enough reasons to want
to support more than x.509?

(From my p-o-v, I guess I'd argue that any TA related work starting
in 2008 shouldn't only support x.509.)

S.

Stephen Kent wrote:
> At 7:41 AM -0700 8/10/07, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> > > ...
> >
> > With all due respect to Derek and Mike, they do not represent the 
> > entire OpenPGP- and DNSSEC-using community (and they probably didn't 
> > pretend to in your conversations with them...). Others from the 
> > OpenPGP and DNSSEC communities have already given use cases for TAM. I 
> > am most interested in DNSSEC, where there are obvious political 
> > problems with a single signed root in many operational environments.
>
> It's certainly fair to say that neither Derek nor MIke represent the 
> entirety of each of these communities, but I do view them as well 
> informed representatives of these communities.
>
> If folks from these communities make good, concrete arguments about how 
> this work will relate to their interests, then I agree that we should 
> try to keep the work broad, and not exclude these other areas. However, 
> many (most?) of the messages I've seen on this list discussing broader 
> applicability have been very vague in this respect. Thus I think we need 
> more specific examples from these other areas. Also, these examples 
> should be such that they can all be accommodated by standards that are 
> specific enough to be useful, not just broad enough so that we can say 
> that we encompass everything.
>
> Steve