Subject: Re: OCSPv2, DPV and DPD issues summary (long)

From: Peter Sylvester <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 12:22:59 +0100 (MET)

> 
> There is some confusion here. We are in agreement that it would be 
> good if each server along a path logged the response from the server 
> from which it received a response. That does not require nested 
> responses. Nested responses would be needed if we insisted that a 
> client needed to be able to assemble this data, rather than relying 
> on the DPV server(s) to maintain this data.
> 
There are two issues: 

- A server must probably log all activities anyway.
  So far, this is not the directly visible part of the protocol, 
  unless we add a protocol to allow to ask a server to ... 

- But: Whenever wants to know *why* a DPV has responsed, then it should NOT
  be necessary to go back to the server's logging files. Or, a DPV
  server should have the possibility to include all relevant information
  that has contributed to its decision in such a way that a client
  can easily exploit this by logging or showing to a user or else.