Subject: RE: FW: scvp

From: "Trevor Freeman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 11:41:54 -0700

SCVP assumes that the minimum processing for certificate validation is
defined in 3280 and supports that set of data independently of the
algorithm definition. This set of data is universal to all SCVP
validation. If as part of a new algorithm you define additional data,
then that data can be added to the inputs to the new algorithm. An
illustration of how this works is given in SCVP 3.2.11.2 where some name
checking is also performed which is over and above the 3280 checking.
Trevor

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Sylvester [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 10:19 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; Trevor Freeman
Subject: Re: FW: scvp

> > Do you want something like 
> > 
> >    validationPolicyParameters ANY DEFINED BY theValidationPolicy
> 
> Yes.

unless I'm wrong, validation policies identifiers are something like
the policy identifier in RFC 3161? if so, the number is unlimited,
and you cannot use really these ids in an any define by construct.

And how would you construct an ASN1 parser for this, how would
a parser learn dynamically what syntax (and semantics) you need.

Isn't exactly the technical nonsense that we had in version 12,
the validation algorithm syntaxes had been split off in v13,
in a validation policy you indicate now as a parameter. 

"use validation algorithm OIDofsslserver + dns=this.domain", 

you could try to define things like that for each step for the
validation path, saying, "the ca that signs at level 1 must
be validates using cavalidation algorithm 'standard 3280 default
path' (or one of a few of others), and the parameters for algorithm are
'the OCSP server to validate', frequence of validation time?? or others.

I think one should first try and define a language for ... ooups, SPKI