- From: dan ash <dash@68summit.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 10:33:46 -0800
- To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>, "'Anders Rundgren'" <anders.rundgren@telia.com>, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>
- Cc: www-xkms@w3.org
I remember speaking about this at a face-to-face last summer. Nothing was actually decided, however, we had discussed using Keyinfo from XMLSIG... rather than specifying that such info should be embeded in a certificate. This still seems to me as the best approach. daniel ash On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 10:43:31 -0700, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com> said: > > I spoke to Russ Housley about this at RSA. > > Bascially what is going to happen is Alex Deacon will write a one page > RFC > specifying the OID meaning and Russ will assign the OID. > > Phill > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Anders Rundgren [mailto:anders.rundgren@telia.com] > > Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 2:09 PM > > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip > > Cc: www-xkms@w3.org > > Subject: XKMS - AuthorityInfoAccess (AIA) extension > > > > > > There seems to be no defined XKMS - > > AuthorityInfoAccess (AIA) extension [RFC3280] > > > > Does this mean that AIA is considered as less useful? > > > > PKIX's HTTP CertStore which is sort of a subset of XKMS defines > > such an extension. > > > > regards > > Anders Rundgren > > > > -- dan ash danielash@fastmail.fm -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Choose from over 50 domains or use your own
Received on Thursday, 24 April 2003 14:34:54 UTC