re: My comments on the X/Open PKI requirements document

[Rodney Thayer <rodney@sabletech.com>]

I thought all those things were things the IETF did.  users participate,
specs have been being written for many years.  I don't understand the
value-add....

At 06:32 PM 4/11/96 +0100, you wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Note: message carefully and intentionally cross posted.
>> fine.  you want another comment?  I think it's insane we have at least five
>> standards organizations or groups looking at vaguely the same problem.
>
>Agreed.
>
>All that the Open Group is bringing to this effort is:
>(a) organised input from users - i.e. non-vendor potential consumers of
>    the PKI system such as large organisations, governments, and
>(b) experience in multi-vendor API spec agreement (XPG, UNIX, XA etc),
>    and associated branding and test suite development.
>
>There is zero interest or any value in purporting to duplicate or
>second guess existing work of ISO/IEC JTC1 SC27, IETF PKIX, IETF SPKI,
>ANSI X9F1 etc on certificate formats and PKI protocols except where there
>are gaps - potentially because of different understanding of business
>requirements or conflicting cultural assumptions in those groups.
>
>Further substantive comments on the user requirements are solicited.
>Technical input should be provided to Dean Adams at d.adams@xopen.org
>
>

                  Rodney Thayer           ::         rodney@sabletech.com
                  Sable Technology Corp   ::              +1 617 332 7292
                  246 Walnut St           ::         Fax: +1 617 332 7970     
                  Newton MA 02160 USA     ::  http://www.shore.net/~sable
                           "Developers of communications software"

---

• Prev by Date: re: My comments on the X/Open PKI requirements document
• Next by Date: Why identity based authorization is a bad idea.
• Prev by thread: re: My comments on the X/Open PKI requirements document
• Next by thread: The word "certificate"
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread