At Mon, 13 Mar 2017 08:47:11 -0400, Rob Austein <s...@hactrn.net> wrote: > > At Mon, 13 Mar 2017 14:16:59 +0800, Declan Ma wrote: > ... > > It seems to me that the only concern on OID is about using OPENSSL > > to get resource sets for further validation process. If the WG has > > decided to deprecate the original by using the Validation > > Reconsidered, why bother to bring a new OID ? > > Because library code which thinks it understands RFC 3779 has been > shipping for a decade now, and the WG has no magic wand which can make > that library code go away. It is very poor form to retroactively > change the semantics of something that has already shipped, at least > when there is an easy way to avoid the problem, as there is here.
new oid's seemed reasonable to me... as a chemical engineer playing security engineer on network things. -chris _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
