On 30/04/2010 19:23, Sean Turner wrote:
And here is my problem. This Internet-Draft is about the
> application/pkcs10 media type, so you cannot write a requirement for a
> PKCS #10 certification request, which is specified in RFC 2986, to
> mandate the usage of the application/pcks10 media type. In other words,
> I believe the sentence is technically correct, but this is not the
> document where it should be written.
>
> So, did the author write this sentence intentionally or has further
> background for its existence?
That sentence was taken from RFC 2311 (i.e., SMIMEv2) section 3.7. I
suspect (it was before my time) that it was there to specify how to
request a certificate from a CA. This was before PKIX standardized
their different options.
I see your point about it belonging in RFC 2986, but this document
updates RFC 2986 so it will be part of that document. I will
incorporate your suggested rewording (active is better than passive).
Does this address your concern?
Yes, this solves my concern. Here you have another suggestion, you are
free to take it on board or not: Perhaps you should clearly indicate
somewhere in the draft that the only update this document does to RFC
2986 is to mandate the usage of application/pkcs10 media type (I guess
this is the only change). This will make life easier for those who try to
identify which kind of update is done.
/Miguel
--
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
