Geoff Huston wrote on 22-07-2009 02:21: [...] > 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. >
I support this point of view. I'd like to see the CP document as light as possible, referring to other documents, like the profile or a CPS, for more specific stuff. > regards, > > Geoff > Regards, Andrei _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
