WG chair hat off
On 22/07/2009, at 8:32 AM, Stephen Kent wrote:
Geoff,
I was referring to the current CP document.
I think we should remove all references to algorithms from all other
documents, and refer to the CP.
I disagree with this approach. The reason for my disagreement is that
I was working under the impression that a "profile" document takes a
parent specification (or multiple specifications) and makes a specific
set of technical choices, where choice is allowed, with the intention
of defining a strict subset of the parent specification that has the
property that all implementations of the profile will be able
correctly interpret the products of other conforming implementations.
The intention of such a profile lies in ensuring efficient
interoperability, in that implementations that conform to such a
profile are not requirement to implement the complete range of options
encompassed in the parent specification. This strikes me as a useful
undertaking, particularly in the case when the range of choices are
potentially open ended.
It seems to me that if you are proposing that the CP take on that role
of profile definition through shift in the specification of then the
next logical step here would be to abandon the res-cert draft
completely and place the entire onus of definition of conformance to a
profile onto the CP document. I did not think that CP documents
carried the burden of actually defining a profile, and from my
understanding of the role of a CP document it seems to me that it
would be inadvisable to place the CP into such a role.
As far as I can tell this is _a_ profile. It is not necessarily the
case that this will be the only such profile ever. Other profiles may
exist in the future, and such profiles may elect to use an approach
that is intended to be backward compatible with this profile, or may
deliberately elect to take a stance that is not backward compatible
with this profile. And it is conceivable that the the CP OID value in
conforming certificate products could well be the distinguishing field
that allows replying parties to identify the associated intended
profile and, accordingly, define their actions in terms of
interpretation of such objects. But, for me, that does not imply that
it is appropriate to allow the CP to subsume the role of the vehicle
for the technical specification of the associated profile. So I do not
believe that it is appropriate to remove all reference to algorithms
from all other documents, and refer to the CP, and believe that the
opposite is the case and that the CP should refer to specifications
that explicitly describe algorithms as a integral part of the complete
technical profile that such specifications define.
regards,
Geoff
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
