Subject: RE: FW: scvp

From: "Trevor Freeman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 10:00:09 -0700

Hi Peter,

What part of 1 are you referring to, the core 3280 parameters or the
parameters which are used over and above 3280?

2. How about changing the isCA boolean to entityType where entityType is
an  enumerated list. Absence means don't care.

entityType ::= ENUMERATED {
    Any                   (0),
    endEntity             (1),
    certificateAuthority  (2)}

Trevor

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Sylvester [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 1:15 AM
To: [email-masked]; Trevor Freeman
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: FW: scvp

> Hi Peter,
> The additions optional allow the client to specify in the request the
> full range validation parameters defined in 3280 section 6. If you
read
> section 1, you will see a validation policy is the validation
algorithm
> plus the input parameter to the algorithm. SCVP14 defines all the base
> inputs as defined in 3280. New validation algorithm cab define
> additional input variable.
I saw the need for these parameters, but ... (1)

> The only other parameter you mention refers to Basic constraints, so
if
> a SCVP client want to validate what it believes is a CA certificate,
> then it passes in CA=true.
That's not what the spec says ... (2)

> 
> I am not sure whether I am the only person unable to construct a
parser.

(1) ... the syntax in umbiguous.

> in version 14 an aditional flag has been added which is not available
in
> the
> Chapter 9. Is the isCA flag an orthogonal attribut to other validation
> algorithms, or just to some of them, e.g,. the default name matching
> one? 

(2) ... there is no option saying client doesn't care whether the cert
is a CA or EE.

I am not sure whether one needs three options, or, for example:
"If set to TRUE, the caller requires a CA, otherwise, the caller doesn't
care."