[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: comments on draft-ietf-ipsec-pki-req-01.txt - alternate names
argh. I didn't mean to prohibit that.
I myself don't like sending chains but I'm not trying to have that debate
over this document.
I'll think about how I worded things and come up with something less vague.
At 12:42 PM 9/14/98 -0400, you wrote:
>>>
>>>Could you change the wording of the third paragraph of section 3.2 to say:
>>>
>>>A root signing certificate
>>> ^^^^
>>
>>No. If it's not at the top of the hierarchy then it's not a root.
>>Been there, got that wrong. You might not like my mandating 8 layers, and
>>that's fine, but
>>I am positive we'll need to deal with more than one-layer hierarchies.
>
>Without the "root" specification, this paragraph (as well as the last
>sentence of the second paragraph in section 3.3) precludes the sending
>of certificate chains via IKE (which is fine with me since the proper
>handling of chains received via IKE is not a simple matter :).
>
>-dmason
>
References: