[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
ansi/ccitt doc availability
I would like to comment on spec availability. It is not only true that
current participants in the specifications process might, should, and do
want to access certain CCITT or ANSI docs but this requirement will go on as
long as this standard is in use. It is my experience over the last ten
years or so that the real way you get these documents is to find a
rapportuer and stay in touch with them to sneak a copy of the doc out in a
stable draft stage. This is effectively the current mechanism. Once you
have to access these specs in the Real World it becomes essentially
impossible for anyone with less than infinite funding and time to find all
these documents. This is as opposed to the IETF mechanism, whereby
documents are by definition available, on-line, in ascii text format. It's
in the document spec, RFC 1543. ANSI documents seem to be typically sold at
a price around U.S.$1.00 per page, and they don't seem to be significantly
more available in other countries. This is a most efficient barrier to
interoperability and innovation which I don't claim to be able to change but
I do claim that the results of this group's efforts will have to deal with.
So, even though I personally have many years of experience that have taught
me to vigorously appreciate Mr. Jueneman's efforts to keep people informed,
I would like to say that the process is kind of broken when we have to pull
stunts like this.
>From: Jueneman@gte.com
>Date: Sat, 02 Mar 1996 17:50:58 EST
>Subject: ANSI X9 version of X.509, and Draft Amendment available on request.
>To: spki@c2.org
>Reply-To: Jueneman@gte.com
>Sender: owner-spki@c2.org
>
>I'm posting the following response to a note from to Neil Burnett to this list
>to underscore the fact that I am sympathetic to the concern many have expressed
>regarding the general unavailability of ISO/ITU documents in general, and
X.509
>in particular.
>
>Unfortunately, it isn't within my power to change those standards
>organization's practices, though I would if I could.
>
>However, I do have copies of what I believe to be the latest ANSI X9 draft,
>which has been harmonized with the latest X.509 V3 version. In addition, I
have
>what I believe to be the latest version of the Draft Amendment to X.509 V3,
>which is still in the final balloting phase.
>
>Versions are available in both Word and PostScript format, and I could also
>make available an Adobe Acrobat version (PDF). Unfortunately, because of our
>firewalls I can't easily put these up on an FTP server for anonymous access,
>but I will e-mail them on request. Be warned, however, that they are in the
>100K to 200K range.
>
>Bob
>
>Robert R. Jueneman
>GTE Laboratories
>40 Sylvan Road
>Waltham, MA 02254
>Jueneman@gte.com
>1-617/466-2820
>
>"The opinions expressed are my own, and may not
>reflect the official position of GTE, if any, on this subject."
>
>-----
>
>>Thanks for your contributions to both spki and pkix. I hope you stay
>>involved - I find your input valuable, though I sometimes disagree with
>>your opinions.
>
>Thanks. And by the way, I learn a lot from others as well. I've even been
known
>
>to change my opinion from ttime to time, so keep arguing if you disagree --
you
>
>might be right!
>>
>>On Feb 27, 11:41, Jueneman@gte.com <Jueneman@gte.com> wrote:
>>> I don't want to accuse you or anyone else of not having done their
homework,
>
>
>>> but I get the very strong impression that some people haven't read X.509 V3
>in >> detail. (Since it hasn't been officially published in hard copy form
yet,
>
>
>>> that's not totally surprising, but I thought that most of the people on
this
>
>
>>> list would have had access to the V3 spec and the proposed Draft Amendment
>>> which lays out additional extensions.)
>>
>>I am surprised to hear the tone of this comment. I doubt that
>>even most readers of pkix have read the x.509 specs. The difficulty,
>>time, and expense of acquiring ISO and ITU specs has been a major
>>problem and topic of debate for a long time.
>
>On that point I heartily agree with you. It is exasperating. I've thought
about
>
>
>acquiring some of the specs on CD-ROM, but couldn't be sure exactly what
>version was what.
>
>The ANSI X9F1 document is somewhat more accessible, and Warwick Ford is trying
>hard to keep them synchronized. I have what I believe to be the latest, and
>could e-mail it to you in either Word or PostScript format. I could also
>convert it to Adobe Acrobat (PDF) if you would prefer. Likewise, I have what I
>believe to be the latest version of the Draft Amendment and could e-mail it in
>either format. But both of them are 100 to 200K in length, so I wouldn't want
>to broadcast them to the world.
>>
>>I have followed pkix for months and it was clear that access to the
>>specs is a critical problem. I once followed this pointer,
>>
>> ftp://NC-17.MA02.Bull.com/pub/OSIdirectory/Certificates/
>>
>>and had a very hard time making any sense of what I saw there. Part
>>of the problem is the endless obfuscation of terminology so that, as I
>>recall, I never knew if I was finding 'comments on comments' or
>>'comments on a draft' or the draft itself, etc.
>
>You should make that point directly to Hoyt Kesterson <H_Kesterson@bull.com>,
>who is the X.509 chair and X.500 rapportuer, and who maintains that list.
>Unfortunately, his hands may be tied because of ISO/ITU policy decisions
>regarding publication. Those standards organizations still have the mentality
>that only large corporations and PTTs are their customers, and they sell the
>standards as a means of funding the secretariat functions. It may not do any
>good, but screaming to ANSI, NIST, the US Secretary of State, and your elected
>representatives will at least let you vent, and might actually accomplish
>something!
>>
>>If you really want people to read the specs, make them (and the specs
>>they refer to!) available on-line in a convenient, well-documented
>>and hyperlinked way.
>
>I certainly wish it were within my personal power to do so, but it isn't.
>>
>>Absent that, there is good reason to avoid specs like x.509.
>
>I believe that the PKIX group is acting responsibly in publishing the X.509
>spec within an RFC, and in addition trying to profile the usage of the various
>fields (although I disagree with some of the recommendations made to date,
>e.g., deprecating the use of certificate suspension.)
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Neal.McBurnett@att.com 503-331-5795 Portland/Denver
>>Bell Labs Innovations for Lucent Technologies
>> Formerly AT&T's systems and technology business
>>http://bcn.boulder.co.us/~neal/Home.html (with PGP key)
>>
>
>
>Bob
>
>Robert R. Jueneman
>GTE Laboratories
>40 Sylvan Road
>Waltham, MA 02254
>Jueneman@gte.com
>1-617/466-2820
>
>"The opinions expressed are my own, and may not
>reflect the official position of GTE, if any, on this subject.
>
>
>
>
>
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"