|
RE: OCSP - Wait A Minute!: msg#00275ietf.x509
Nobody is arguing that there is no value in extending OCSP to provide additional features. An extension mechanism has been added for that exact reason. Adding features is not something that should be done lightly however. Particularly when they represent a considerable extension of the functionality of the underlying protocol (as this suggestion does) and even more so when the proposal introduces a change in the trust model of the application (as this suggestion also does). There is a place for such proposals of course, but not during a last call. If there was no mechanism for extending OCSP to provide the desired functionality it would be a different matter. I would suggest that you submit your proposal as an Internet draft describing an OCSP extension. Phil |
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Date: | Re: Authentication vs. binding signature, and ephemeral vs. permanent key usage: 00275, Eric Murray |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: x.509 v3 Certificates and Compatbility: 00275, Hans Nilsson |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: OCSP - Wait A Minute!i: 00275, Anders Rundgren |
| Next by Thread: | Re: OCSP - Wait A Minute!: 00275, Peter Sylvester |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
| News | FAQ | advertise |