--On Thursday, 21 February, 2008 12:57 -0500 Russ Housley
<housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Timing did not allow this approach. Registration for this
> meeting is being handled by AMS, our new Secretariat vendor.
> However, we needed to open registration for this meeting
> before ietf.org was moved from the old Secretariat vendor to
> the new one. This approach seemed like the best way to deal
> with the transition.
Russ,
Taking this as a given, can we be assured that future meetings
will be handled exclusively from ietf.org? If so, then I think
we should, to the extent possible, write the issues with the
amsl.com certification off as a transition issue and move on.
If not, I would think that this discussion ought to expand into
examining the question of whether the example IETF sets ought to
involve certificate authorities and types that actually verify
an organization's identity and status, not just the ability to
obtain a domain name and set up a web site.
john
> At 12:05 PM 2/21/2008, SM wrote:
>> At 07:22 21-02-2008, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>> > So, what puzzles me here is:
>> > Why is this going to amsl.com at all? It seems extremely
>> > desirable to have a set of names and credentials that point
>> > only to *ietf.org, both to keep interfaces consistent and
>> > to avoid issues with referential integrity in future
>> > transitions.
>>
>> Good question. It would have been better to have the
>> registration site under *.ietf.org instead of being directed
>> to a third-party site. It may inspire more confidence.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -sm
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IETF mailing list
>> IETF@xxxxxxxx
>> http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
> _______________________________________________
> IETF mailing list
> IETF@xxxxxxxx
> http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf