[x500standard] Re: SV: Re: SV: Re: SV: Re: New defect report on missing organisation information
- From: Sharon Boeyen <sharon.boeyen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "x500standard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <x500standard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 14:15:57 -0400
Actually I disagree about the 'uncontrolled' development of attributes or
extensions being against the spirit of standardization. Both the original set
of directory attributes (and object classes) as well as the initial set of
X.509 certificate extensions were created in order to provide a commonly
applicable base set from which others would then extend as they saw fit to suit
their particular needs. These were never intended to be "the set" of standard
attributes, object classes or extensions. This was a point that Hoyt, in
particular, used to hammer home on many occasions and strongly resisted any
change to the set in order to discourage people from thinking this was the
single set of standard attributes.
However, that's not a valid argument against what you're attempting to do here.
I'm not saying it wouldn't necessarily be a useful and commonly used attribute
(although I do wonder whether there aren't already groups using some other
attributes to satisfy similar needs).
All I'm saying is that this is not a defect and the proper way to progress this
work (as well as any other schema enhancements people feel might be needed)
would be through the enhancement mechanism. The defect process really should be
used only for true defects. Time is not the gating factor for whether something
should be considered a defect. If industry is waiting with baited breath for
this attribute with an OID from the ITU/ISO arc, they'll start using it as soon
as an initial draft document is published (probably) regardless of the
standards process used to progress the work.
Anyway that's just my opinion and I won't bother pushing my view further - just
needed to voice it :)
b.t.w. I never went away - just went quiet :)
From: x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Erik Andersen
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 7:15 AM
To: x500standard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [x500standard] SV: Re: SV: Re: SV: Re: New defect report on missing
organisation information
Hi Sharon,
Nice to have you back. I have been missing your for a long time.
We do not have a clear issue here. It is true that if you have control of an
OID branch, you can define your own attribute types. This one of the great
feature of the OID concept. However, it is also at times causes a disarray. As
an example, LDAP has the concept of controls where a control is assigned an
OID. This has caused a large number of controls to be defined in very diverted
parts of the OID tree, which makes it difficult to get a total picture about
what useful controls that are available. Often they are allocated from company
branches, companies that may not exist tomorrow.
You could say the same about certificate extension. An uncontrolled
development of extension is against the spirit of standardisation and causes
interworking problems.
If an organisation needs an attribute type that is very specific to the
organisation, it is reasonable that they use some odd OID. However, if we talk
about an attribute type that is general useful, it is not very productive if
everyone defines their own version of that attribute type with different OIDs.
I believe this is the case here.
We do not have good procedures for handling this case. A four years cycle is
not the optimal solution. We have to be a little flexible here. By putting it
up as a defect report people have the opportunity to discuss whether a
suggested attribute type is in fact general useable or whether it is specific
to a particular organisation.
Kind regards,
Erik
Fra:
x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]>
På vegne af Sharon Boeyen
Sendt: 30. marts 2012 18:59
Til: x500standard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:x500standard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Emne: [x500standard] Re: SV: Re: SV: Re: New defect report on missing
organisation information
Erik I agree with Denis that this is an enhancement and not a defect. The
standard allows other attributes to be defined by any entity. The fact that in
SOME environments an additional attribute would be helpful does not make this a
defect in the standard, but rather a potential enhancement.
From:
x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Erik Andersen
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 12:07 PM
To: x500standard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:x500standard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [x500standard] SV: Re: SV: Re: New defect report on missing
organisation information
HI Denis,
I will give it a shot.
Erik
Fra:
x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]>
På vegne af denis.pinkas@xxxxxxxx<mailto:denis.pinkas@xxxxxxxx>
Sendt: 30. marts 2012 18:01
Til: x500standard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:x500standard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Emne: [x500standard] Re: SV: Re: New defect report on missing organisation
information
Erik,
You speak of VAT-number while others were speaking of something else.
I have the feeling that we have a solution but that we don't know what the
problem is
or that we don't agree that we share the same problem.
We should start by a problem statement, which currently is far from crystal
clear.
Proposing an ASN.1 syntax without the explanations is not the solution either.
The defect report is currently not correctly presented and would need to be
fully rewritten.
Denis
De : "Erik Andersen" <era@xxxxxxx<mailto:era@xxxxxxx>>
A : <x500standard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:x500standard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date : 30/03/2012 17:51
Objet : [x500standard] SV: Re: New defect report on missing organisation
information
Envoyé par :
x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
________________________________
Hi Denis,
Thanks for making the effort to read the defect report and for the correction.
I am not used to that.
There is no clear border line between a defect report and an enhancement. Added
a single attribute type has no affect on the remaining of the specification and
is therefore quite safe. I did not invent the requirement for the new attribute
type, but recognised that we have been missing such an attribute type for a
long time to enter e.g. a VAT-number. The lack of such a capability could be
labelled as an omission, which is one of the things that can justify a defect
report.
The seventh edition of X.520 is at its final stage where it is not possible to
add such an attribute as part of the extension process, and if we tried, we
would sneak it in. Now, we do it more openly. Waiting for a possible eight
edition of X.520 would delay the solution by four years.
The proposed solution will eventually end up in a Draft Technical Corrigendum,
that will go out for vote within both ISO and ITU-T.
Erik
Fra:
x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] På vegne af
denis.pinkas@xxxxxxxx<mailto:denis.pinkas@xxxxxxxx>
Sendt: 30. marts 2012 17:00
Til: x500standard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:x500standard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Directory list
Emne: [x500standard] Re: New defect report on missing organisation information
Hummm !
The "defect" is presented this way:
The organizationName is not always enough to identify a organisation. At times
an additional information necessary, like some kind of identifier issued by the
authorities.
First of all, the sentence is not English. At the minimum a verb is missing in
the second sentence.
But more important, I disagree that it is a "defect report". It looks like an
enhancement.
Then, the "pseudo defect" is not correctly characterized.
So if the question is not correctly stated, how could any solution be
appropriate ?
Denis
De : "Erik Andersen" <era@xxxxxxx<mailto:era@xxxxxxx>>
A : "Directory list"
<x500standard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:x500standard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date : 30/03/2012 14:41
Objet : [x500standard] New defect report on missing organisation
information
Envoyé par :
x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
________________________________
I have issued a new defect report 381. See
http://www.x500standard.com/index.php?n=Ig.DefectReports
Any comments?
Erik
Other related posts:
