Subject: pkinit apathy

From: [email-masked] (Sam Hartman)
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 13:38:18 -0400 (EDT)

We don't seem to be making much progress on pkinit.  I know I'm
waiting for a few things from other people; is anyone waiting on
something from me?

I am waiting on a response to the authorization data discussion from
the Cable Labs people.  Does Nico's clarification help people
understand why you would want that data to be a MUST implement?  If
you do understand why someone might want that to be a MUST, do you
agree it should in fact be a MUST?  If not, why not?

I'm waiting to hear on the whole OCSP issue from someone at Microsoft.
How important do they believe it is to standardize now?

I'm also concerned that Love's comments haven't been resolved.  I do
not fully understand them, but I do understand them enough to believe
that they need to be dealt with.

I'm also a bit dubious that we actually got to consensus on text
dealing with names and the AS reply.  IN this instance, I think our
lack of consensus stems from too many acceptable options and a need to
pick one.

--Sam

---

From: Brian Tung <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 12:21:13 -0700

> lack of consensus stems from too many acceptable options and a need to

I know I'm working out from under a mountain of papers.  Sorry about not
keeping active in the prior discussion; I should be better in the coming
days.

Brian Tung <[email-masked]>

---

From: Love <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 22:08:56 +0200

[email-masked] (Sam Hartman) writes:

> We don't seem to be making much progress on pkinit.

I'm almost considering hijacking the document and start editing myself (no
offence meant to Brian). I think it should be an implementor that is
(co-)editor to the document, they should be interested in getting the draft
completed.

Love