[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [caops-wg] Name Constraints - attempt at framing issues

To: Von Welch <vwelch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [caops-wg] Name Constraints - attempt at framing issues
From: Mike Helm <helm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 20:56:09 -0700
Cc: CAOPS-WG <caops-wg@xxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: grdfm-caops-wg-outgoing@mailbouncer.mcs.anl.gov
Delivered-to: grdfm-caops-wg@mailbouncer.mcs.anl.gov
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 13 Oct 2005 21:16:00 CDT." <1CA03675-3464-4D2B-BE8A-9B9B95DE9A58@ncsa.uiuc.edu>
Reply-to: helm@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-caops-wg@xxxxxxx

Von Welch writes:
> 2) Do we believe that during normal operation the CAs indicated in  
> the response to the first question have policy that will result in  
> their issuing globally unique names and will reliably follow that  
> policy?

Ok, after thinking about this some more, I feel I didn't understand
this question at first.  I change my answer to "No", which I 
see as being consistent with positions I took earlier.

We do not have policy that will guarantee globally unique names,
particularly if we widen our collection of CAs.

References:
- [caops-wg] Name Constraints - attempt at framing issues
  - From: Von Welch

Prev by Date: RE: [caops-wg] Name Constraints - attempt at framing issues
Next by Date: Re: [caops-wg] Name Constraints - attempt at framing issues
Previous by thread: Re: [caops-wg] Name Constraints - attempt at framing issues
Next by thread: RE: [caops-wg] Name Constraints - attempt at framing issues
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread