[caops-wg] GFD.125 to P-REC?

[Jens Jensen]

Hi Mike,

I think the consensus was that there should not be substantial changes
to the document because it would then need to start a long review
process again. OTOH, I would think a few minor changes should be OK,
provided we add a little changelog at the end. (From SHOULD to MUST is
not a big step...?)

I guess what you're really asking is could the UK CA please take email
out of hosts - which of course we have had for a long time only
because doggedly stick to the policy of not changing EE DNs, so we're
stuck with what was OK in 2001. Once I find a mail to optionally
remove it in rekey - or of course optionally keep it in rekey - I'll
let you know. In fact I have a student working on the bulk host stuff
at the moment and he's a pretty smart egg so he should be able to get
round to this shortly.

0.02.
-j


On 5 August 2011 15:16, Mike Jones <mike.jones at manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> I can't remember what was agreed in Salt Lake City regarding comments for
> GFD.125.
>
> That said: The emailAddress vs Email issue has just lit up again on a UK
> mailing list.
>
> Do we have the opportunity for, and should we consider, strengthening the
> SHOULD NOT use emailaddress in subject names to a MUST NOT?
>
> It's still "deprecated but permitted" in the replacement of RFC3280 by
> RFC5280.
>
> Mike
>
> On Monday 31 January 2011 08:01:05 Alan Sill wrote:
>
>> Hi David and the CAOps group,
>
>>
>
>> I'd like to suggest that we think collectively about the considerations
>
>> that have led us to put forward the very useful and by now quite mature
>
>> CAOPs document GFD.125 as a "COmmunity Practice" document and not as a
>
>> proposed recommendation. I understand that historically, there was some
>
>> thought that this profile might not represent a collection of items that
>
>> ought to be standardized, but I think that experience has shown most of
>
>> its content to be important, if not essential.
>
>>
>
>> With this in mind, I'd like to raise the issue of whether this quite
>> mature
>
>> document, or another one quite close to it in intent, might be worth
>
>> putting forward into the stream as a proposed recommendation. To go from
>
>> a proposed to a full recommendation would take the passage of some time
>
>> and demonstration of multiple implementations; I am willing to consider
>
>> the multiple adoptions of GFD.125 by CAs throughout the world as
>
>> implementations for this purpose.
>
>>
>
>> There may be other points of view, but now is the time to discuss them, I
>
>> think, and so would like to ask for your input.
>
>>
>
>> Thanks,
>
>> Alan
>
>> --
>
>> caops-wg mailing list
>
>> caops-wg at ogf.org
>
>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/caops-wg
>
> --
>  caops-wg mailing list
>  caops-wg at ogf.org
>  http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/caops-wg
>