Re: Re: Asking to review multi-domain PKI interoperability I-D

Masaki sama and all,

  The best way for me to respond would be for me to invite you to
view this webcast:
 http://itw.itworld.com/GoNow/a15565a131456a75352868a0
It should give you at least some insight as to bridging the PKI
gap.

Masaki SHIMAOKA wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> Thanks for your interesting.
>
> Basically we focus on only PKI certs based on X.509 and RFC 3280,
> because our focused issues are caused by some certificate extensions on
> X.509 certs.
>
> That is,
> >   What is the criterion for a definition of "Distinguished Names"
> > as referred to below?
>
> We have been working under the assumption of X.509 certificate and DN as
> defined in X.509.
>
> And,
> >   Is there any consideration for other interoperability for other
> > in use and trusted PKI certs that are not X.509 based?
> Currently there is no consideration for other PKI certs that are not
> X.509 based.
> But if we should have considerations for other interoperability issues
> with other technology, please show us your concerns.
> If necessary, we may have to consider other interoperability with other
> PKI certs that are not X.509 based.
>
> Anyway, we must clear way firstly for the interoperability between X.509
> based PKIs.
>
> Thanks,
> -- shima

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1 <at> ix.netcom.com
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827