Subject: SCVP : WantBack (minor)

From: "Denis Pinkas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:41:02 +0100

Section 3.2 :

   SCVP clients that support delegated path discovery (DPD) as defined
   in [RQMTS] MUST support wantBack.

Section 3.2.3 :

   Conforming client implementations SHOULD be able to assert at least
   one wantback.

[Denis] This is contradictory.

The previous sentence should be changed into :

Conforming client implementations that support delegated path discovery 
(DPD) as defined in [RQMTS] SHOULD be able to assert at least one wantback.

---

From: Tim Polk <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 17:15:30 -0500

Denis,

I see the conflict.  Proposed resolution inline..

>(DPD) as defined in [RQMTS] SHOULD be able to assert at least one wantback.

I agree that this text is inconsistent.  DPD clients must be able to 
support this field, since it is used to request that the server return the 
path.  I propose the following change in section 3.2.3:

Replace
         "Conforming client implementations SHOULD be able to assert
         at least one wantback."
with
         "Conforming client implementations that support delegated
         path validation (DPV) as defined in [RQMTS] SHOULD be
         able to assert at least one wantback.  Conforming client
         implementations that support delegated path discovery (DPD)
         as defined in [RQMTS] MUST be able to assert at least one
         wantBack."

Tim Polk