Re: DN is not an identifier (was Re: XML certificate ...)

<Philip>
> Please do not think that there is no sympathy for the arguments.
> They are not well recieved for the same reason that I do not like
> the suggestion I get DSL at home. I would very much like to do so
> if it did not require me to move the whole house two miles closer
> to the switch first!
</Philip>

This is the crux of the problem.  There is a majority that has invested
time, energy, and money into building an ASN.1 house.  There is a minority
that wants to build their first house and are analyzing the market
attempting to decide where and with what material to build.  If one has
already made an investment and has a house, there is no good reason to
change.  If one has not made an investment, there are lots of good reasons
not to invest in an ASN.1 house, but instead to invest in an XML house.

<Philip>
> Since one co-chair has already served notice that this discussion
> is out of scope and the other will undoubtedly do so as well I'll
> not go on any further.
</Philip>

I continue to believe this is an activity that should be sponsored by the
W3C and/or the IETF because these organizations have (1) the expertise and
(2) the legitimacy to develop and promote such a standard.

However, if there is no interest by either the W3C or the IETF, then I
invite anyone who cares to continue the discussion to join the "Policy" WG
(policy@legalxml.org) at Legal XML (http://www.legalxml.org/).   The main
purpose of the Legal XML Policy list is to discuss XML for certificate
policies and practice statements.  However, the issue of XML certificates
has been brought up and even if it does not become a formal activity of the
group, at least the Legal XML list might serve as a temporary place for this
discussion to occur without causing a disturbance the XML-Signature list.

Again, I *strongly* encourage Joseph and others at the W3C, as well as
leaders in the IETF, to consider this as a W3C/IETF activity.  It really
*should not* be a Legal XML activity.  But, there should be *someplace*
where this discussion and work can take place . . .

Todd

Received on Saturday, 13 May 2000 17:42:02 UTC