Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pkix-ocspv2-ext-00.txt

From: [email-masked] (Peter Gutmann)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 18:51:12 +1300 (NZDT)

Uhh, where on earth did this one come from?  The previous consensus on the
list seemed to be do produce a minimal update with some more workable IDs and
CRLDP info as suggested by Denis:

>To be more precise, I do not care about the expired OCSP v2 draft, but I
>care about fixing RFC 2560, while sticking to its original functionality:
>individual certificate revocation information status check.
>
>Having said that, we should correct the major problem that exists in
>RFC 2560, which is how the certificate can be defined.
>
>[...]
>
>I agree that, for defining an extension for handling a CRLDP extension

This thing is neither compatible with the previous OCSPv2, nor with what was
discussed on the list... this is more like 2560bis-bis.  It seems to be
contrary to everything that was discussed on the list.  I already have an
OCSPv2 draft done based on the previous discussion on the list, I was just
waiting a bit longer to make sure none of the original v2 authors would feel
slighted when I posted the new, minimal update to v1.

Peter.

---

From: Denis Pinkas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 11:19:21 +0100

Peter,

> contrary to everything that was discussed on the list.  

In the new draft :

- an extension for handling a CRLDP extension has been defined,
- in addition to the current way to define a certificate,
   two new ways have been defined.

This is fully aligned with the discussion on the list.

The only point is the extension to cover Attribute Certificates,
which is rather straightforward.

Anticipating one comment from you, the editors have already agree to change 
IssuerSerial by IssuerandSerialNumber in the next version.

If you have additional detailed comments on the draft, please post them.

Denis

> I already have an