Subject: Vagueness in empty CRLs

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 16:56:06 -0800

RFC 2459, section 5.1.2 says:

    Optional fields include lists of revoked certificates and CRL
    extensions.  The revoked certificate list is optional to support the
    case where a CA has not revoked any unexpired certificates that it
    has issued.

This could be read two ways:

a) If there are no revoked certs, do not include the optional field

b) If there are no revoked certs, you can include and empty optional field 
because it is, after all, optional

At least one developer has coded only for (a). Do people have a strong 
feeling one way or another? Either way, I think this should be clearer in 
2459bis.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 11:56:00 -0500

I wrote this sentence.  I meant (a).  If you think it is necessary, we can 
add a few words to remove the ambiguity in the next version.

Russ

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 09:47:22 -0800

>add a few words to remove the ambiguity in the next version.

I think it's necessary. And easy.

--Paul Hoffman, Director