[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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




At 10:11 PM +0100 8/10/07, Stephen Farrell wrote:

But, your main point is correct - if there are people with real
non-x.509 use cases they really should speak up now before a WG is
chartered (or re-chartered).

In addition to Thomas' long list, I would add "items directly signed by the TA with no intervening certificates". This would likely include the TA instructions themselves, but it also includes various authorization instructions.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium