Toerless,
Dear Stephen,
Thank you very much for your thoughts, but i do not think we can move
the discussion ahead when it stops with non-technical opinion dropping
statements like "lets not play games" (you) or "i do not think this
is the right thing to do" (Ben/Russ).
Could you please explain your assertion with technical arguments ?
The ID goes to great lengths to justify the use of the rfc822Name field
for this context, rather than defining a new data type. If this was the
obvious "right" thing to do, there would not need to be so much text
justifying the choice ("The lady doth protest too much, methinks").
I am not an AD; I don't have a vote on this. If PKIX were still an
active WG, and if someone came to me and asked about the choice of
identifier in the ACP context, I would say that it was a questionable
choice, given 25+ years of experience with PKI standards and technologies.
As I noted in a prior message, when Netscape elected to shove a DNS name
into the common name field, it was a questionable choice, and we have
had to live with the result for 20+ years. Elliot Lear's messages
suggest that this choice was motivated , at least in part, by
expediency, but he believes that sometimes expediency is an OK
justification in these matters. Personally, I don't, but, ...
Steve
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
