[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: editorial on Photuris
Ran Atkinson writes:
> Regardless of whether some folks have strong objections to X.509,
> there DOES exist a community of interest that wants to use it. There
> are known technical problems with putting X.509 into the DNS, hence
> DNS certificates are not X.509 format (neither are they PGP).
>
> It is legitimate for folks in the IPsec WG to work on adding X.509
> support as extensions to the various key mgmt proposals.
I'm not arguing against that at all. I'm arguing something entirely
different -- that it is time for us to work on a simplified
certificate format. This is something that needs doing quite apart
from the specific considerations of Photuris, MOSS, or whatever else
might want to use such certificates. I realize that such a format
isn't going to be ready soon and that work can't be delayed to work
on it, and that people will want to use other formats as well.
Perry
Follow-Ups: