Re: Comments on draft-ietf-secsh-x509-03

[pgut001%cs.auckland.ac.nz@localhost (Peter Gutmann)]

Joseph Galbraith <galb-list%vandyke.com@localhost> writes:

>This was our original intent (and if you look at the first couple of versions
>of the document, what we did.)

Yeah, I wondered why it'd changed so suddenly.

>I'd be really happy to go back to simply describing how to encode x.509
>certificates and signatures in the SSH protocol and call this draft done.
>
>But-- I guess we need people who care about this to come out of the woodwork
>and speak up now about what the working group wants out of this document.

I'd prefer to just have the format documented and call it done.  Fiddling with
certificate-management policy is something that other WGs have spent
(literally) years over, and reached consensus only in the sense that everyone
was equally unhappy with the result... I'd say document the bits on the wire,
and leave the policy side to someone else to write up in their own draft.

Peter.