- From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:54:07 +0000
- To: Tao Effect <contact@taoeffect.com>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11/13/2013 02:40 PM, Tao Effect wrote: > Thanks Julian, > >> I agree that there are problems with this system, but addressing >> those needs to happen in a different working group. > > And that would be...? #include <standard-answer.h> That would be one that gets chartered as a result of a good proposal with a reasonable liklihood of resulting in success both in terms of RFCs being produced and getting implemented and deployed, and where there are enough folks with relevant clue interested. (If someone has such a proposal feel free to contact me or Sean.) In the meantime there is the wpkops working group [1] who are trying to document the current web pki and how that differs from e.g. RFC 5280 and who could do with help in that. That's not really a pre-requisite to new web pki developments, but it would be excellent if such developments were based on the deployed reality (with all its flaws) as a realistic starting point, which is what the wpkops group are trying to capture. S. [1] http://tools.ietf.org/wg/wpkops/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSg5KPAAoJEC88hzaAX42iVhMH/i72tjd+5xdkv0mJY3fgMUjg 0vT/NxuJFeivdZ1GQDOp51xhtNB+YtzBvOaysFlaxcap8/+rHIFNXgqAsiqeMEoI qg1JANOL8vPPblzGt7jCOqHTxwMe4JTqlWp1pE9PqDNP2hLmSm6gp6zVs/l8nHyo T3md6EiPtL+cAOIojzjioKbMH+1Vjfw5Scv49ryqmS6M9XHIaDkYgYnFGGbQsFbd Spj4jYDPQq3tjWHb6rd6WPwNqgHK4wulNfmQxwQc83mNMf0lU+88tM01d31/4uk9 Gul1z0rtrB4/zor19uiiTV9G39+LkRom76YHCJtSAOcUaZjAQG2zQSFi5lUUmRs= =aZc1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2013 14:54:35 UTC