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

["Thomas Hardjono" <thardjono@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-trust-anchor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-ietf-trust-anchor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Stephen Kent
> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 6:38 AM
> To: Paul Hoffman
> Cc: ietf-trust-anchor@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Issue with the requirements document: 
> PKIX-centric terminology
> 
> 
> At 3:28 PM -0700 8/9/07, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> >Greetings again. 
> draft-wallace-ta-mgmt-problem-statement-01.txt does a 
> >good job of listing the problems we need to deal with, but 
> some parts 
> >use PKIX language in places they don't need to. It's fine if these 
> >places are marked off with "for example, in PKIX ...", but in many 
> >places that is not included.
> >
> >To help make it clearer that the requirements are for 
> management of all 
> >public keys, I propose that the following topics be removed or 
> >delimited as PKIXy examples:
> >
> >- Name constraints
> >
> >- Key usage
> >
> >- Expiration dates of keys
> >
> >- Possibly others that I have missed
> >
> >--Paul Hoffman, Director
> >--VPN Consortium
> 
> Paul,
> 
> During the IETF meeting I spoke with several folks about the 
> question of the scope of the TAM effort.  Derek Atkins said 
> that he didn't see OPGP as benefiting from this work.  I 
> think Mike St' Johns didn't view DNSSEC as a beneficiary 
> either. So, maybe we're trying too hard to make this effort 
> generic, when the primary constituency is X.509-centric, at 
> least for now.
> 
> Steve
> 
> 

Steve,

I think the effort and language is pitched just right. Clearly not all
applications and not all Internet-infrastructure elements/ protocols use
X.509. But that's ok.

If the DNSSEC and OpenPGP chairs feel they are not benefiting from the
TAM work then that's also ok.  Bear in mind that there are perhaps more
beneficiaries outside the IETF than inside.

/thomas/