Subject: Re: TSA Response serialNumber Field

From: Peter Sylvester <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 15:55:50 +0200 (MET DST)

> At 15:38 26.05.00 +0200, Denis Pinkas wrote:
> >1) for the first requirement, stick to the use of this parameter as
> >required for PKCs, CRLs in RFC 2459 and for ACs. This means only 
> >require uniqueness and nothing else. We may then keep the name 
> >"serialNumber".
> 
> Just a short remark: CRL serialnumbers (=the cRLNumber extension) are
> required to be monotonically increasing. 
> "5.2.3  CRL Number
>    The CRL number is a non-critical CRL extension which conveys a
>    monotonically increasing sequence number for each CRL issued by a CA.
> "
> 
1, 1, 1, 1 ... would respect this requirement :-)

---

From: Paul Koning <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 12:21:05 -0400 (EDT)

>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Sylvester <[email-masked]> writes:

 >> At 15:38 26.05.00 +0200, Denis Pinkas wrote: >1) for the first
 >> requirement, stick to the use of this parameter as >required for
 >> PKCs, CRLs in RFC 2459 and for ACs. This means only >require
 >> uniqueness and nothing else. We may then keep the name
 >> >"serialNumber".
 >> 
 >> Just a short remark: CRL serialnumbers (=the cRLNumber extension)
 >> are required to be monotonically increasing.  "5.2.3 CRL Number
 >> monotonically increasing sequence number for each CRL issued by a
 >> CA.  "
 >> 
 Peter> 1, 1, 1, 1 ... would respect this requirement :-)

No, because the sequence 1 1 1 is NOT "increasing".  It is
"non-decreasing" which is not the same thing.

"Increasing" means  A(i+1) > Ai for all i.  (Non-decreasing means
A(i+1) >= Ai for all i.)

"Monotonically" is a bit redundant but it doesn't hurt.

	paul

---

From: Tony Bartoletti <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 10:39:49 -0700

>"Monotonically" is a bit redundant but it doesn't hurt.

Sorry Paul.  The sequence 1, 1, 1, ... IS monotonically increasing
(and decreasing, for that matter.)  Perverse but true.

That is, one has Xi <= Xj whenever i <= j.

To eliminate the "=" in the "<=" one must specify "strictly" increasing.

(I will grant that the term "monotonic" seems redundant when "strictly"
is specified.  What could be the difference between "strictly increasing"
and "strictly monotonically increasing?")

___tony___

Tony Bartoletti 925-422-3881 <[email-masked]>
Information Operations, Warfare and Assurance Center
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, CA 94551-9900

---

From: Paul Koning <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 13:46:24 -0400 (EDT)

>>>>> "Tony" == Tony Bartoletti <[email-masked]> writes:

 Tony> At 12:21 PM 5/30/00 -0400, Paul Koning wrote:
 >> "Monotonically" is a bit redundant but it doesn't hurt.

 Tony> Sorry Paul.  The sequence 1, 1, 1, ... IS monotonically
 Tony> increasing (and decreasing, for that matter.)  Perverse but
 Tony> true.

That doesn't match the math I learned, but I guess it goes to show
that you can't count on using this sort of terminology if you want to
communicate the requirements clearly.

Ok, so eliminate the words and replace by the requirement (i.e., the
required relationship is > )

	 paul