|
OCSP questions: msg#00223ietf.x509
I realize that OCSP Draft 5 is getting ready for last call, but ... My point-of-view on the proposed standard is from an on-line transaction processing perspective where certificates are used to authenticate the sender of a transaction. And, where on-line processing, means respond in a few seconds or less... Is it the intent for the thisUpdate field in section 2.4 to timestamp when a specific certificate being checked was reported as revoked? My concern being that we need to know the exact time that a certificate was reported as revoked. To what extent will the timestamp field be certified by the OCSP responder? The time fields being described as generalizedTime (ASN.1) is fine but I'd like to see that further qualified that the generalizedTime MUST be recored as UTC time (example: 19981106210627.3Z). Lastly, what is the chance of a OCSP sender placing some quality-of-service requirement on the OCSP responder? This is to suggest that if I'm batch checking a database of certificates, I don't care if the OCSP message is resonded in several minutes. But if a high-value transaction is pending, I would want a response time in the sub-seconds range. Thoughts? Tom Arnold VP of Engineering CyberSource Corporation toma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Date: | RE: German Key Usage: 00223, Flanigan, Bill |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: ldapv2-schema and CA Certificates: 00223, Dave Horvath |
| Previous by Thread: | Status of OCSP WG Last Call?i: 00223, Tom Arnold |
| Next by Thread: | Re: OCSP questions: 00223, Dan Weinstein |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
| News | FAQ | advertise |